Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Idea

So there is WP:Gender gap, which appears to be a helpful resource and/or recruit non-males to edit and become involved in Wikipedia and other wiki projects. At least in the United States, such programs to help women exist, and have been so successful, that female enrollment and completion far outpace their male counterparts. Therefore, since as has been verified, there are more liberal editors than non-liberal editors, as one of the pillars of the community is neutrality, and as more non-liberal editors will help create a more neutral wikipedia (see WP:STRAIGHT), I hereby would like to present an idea. Why doesn't WP:RIGHT work with WP:CSB and create a join project or a task force to reduce the partisan gap? This addresses a long standing and verified problem of the project, in an open and helpful manner which can only serve to improve the project as a whole. If new editors are taught how to edit civilly and within the policies and guidelines of our community it will increase our editing community and increase neutrality of articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read this section: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Distinguishing_between_selection_bias_and_systemic_bias.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There are so many mistaken or misguided assumptions underlying this proposal that it's hard to know where to start. For one thing, I think it's foolish to dichotomize all editors into "liberals" and "non-liberals". That sort of thinking reflects a fundamental conception of Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, and insofar as this WikiProject has had serious ongoing problems with promoting a battleground attitude, it is best avoided. Secondly, while it seems to be an article of faith among some members of this WikiProject that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, empirical support for this belief is sorely lacking. Simply asserting that such a bias exists (with a link to a Wikipedia article citing a bunch of partisans complaining about the site) doesn't exactly prove your case, but rather highlights its weakness. Finally, even if we assume that such a bias exists, the worst possible solution is to seek to inject additional highly partisan editors into the mix. That's a recipe for disaster, not neutrality. MastCell ^Talk 00:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"this WikiProject has had serious ongoing problems with promoting a battleground attitude" Really, on-going where? Care to to point where or were you just casting aspersions without any basis? This WikiProject is almost inactive. It also has been the target of several nominations for deletion, and amusingly, simply the fact this project exists seems to annoy you people. --Pudeo ' 02:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing right here, in RightCowLeftCoast's proposal and the assumptions that underlie it. And ongoing in your response, which refuses even to consider the concern voiced by many, many outside editors that this project, while arguably sound in theory, has in practice been a tool to coordinate politically partisan editing. "You people".... heh. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason there is a liberal bias in Wikipedia is that there is a liberal bias in reliable sources, since the "neutrality" policy requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (my emphasis) So non-liberal views (communism, Islamism, etc.) do not receive the same weight as liberal views. But if this is a problem, the solution is to change policy.

The problem I see with your suggestion however is what weight to assign different views, if not the current policy. Conservapedia and other wikis do that by adopting another bias. But how would we determine what weight to provide various non-liberal views?

TFD (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That's true, the only bias "that could be acted on" would be bias on topic coverage (i.e. same argument that less women users -> less articles on women). But Wikipedia's coverage of conservative authors, biographies and subjects is already excellent in my opinion. While I also think that in theory more editors with the same views in some controversial topic will create bias, "administering a remedy" would not work or be wise because Wikipedia process is not a machine you can turn 0.2 degrees right to fix bias. --Pudeo ' 19:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is the same argument at all. The problem with few women is not just that that leads to fewer articles on women, but that it leads to a lack of coverage of female perspectives and what women tend to be interested in, and over-representation of male perspectives and what men tend to be interested in. So the problem is that female perspectives and interests are represented in the reliable sources - but do not make it into wikipedia. That discrepancy between the representation in the sources and in wikipedia is not the case for conservative interests and perspectives, which as you recognize are covered.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There might be great coverage of conservative authors, biographies and subjects in so far as reliable sources, which as TFD would like us to believe are more liberal than non-liberal, write about them from a POV which may not have a positive view of those conservative authors, biographies and subjects. WP:NEU is not about advancing the non-neutral POV of reliable sources, but achieving NEU. If as verified by reliable source(s), and as documented here in Wikipedia, there are fewer non-liberal editors are there are liberal editors, than that is a bias IMHO which should be addressed. Now I and the wikiproject am being accused, thus showing non-adherence to good faith and also could be seen as having a battleground mentality, that our goal is to create biased content. This is definitely not the case, nor is it the intent of what my idea proposes.

My idea is that to work towards neutral content (as should all our goals be per WP:5P), it would be helpful to have a more politically diverse editing community. And by having a more politically diverse editing community, who are brought into the community being taught the pillars of the community from the get go, that better and more neutral content will be created.

Just as how there is an active effort to recruit female editors, in an attempt to correct a bias, than why should there not be an active effort to recruit a politically diverse (not only conservative) population, in order to correct a bias (even if perceived). This will only help Wikipedia shed the bias (even if only perceived) in the long run and improve the standing of the encyclopedia as a whole among those who believe it not unbiased.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So we would give equal weight and validity to intelligent design and evolution, climate change and skepticism. And conservatism is not the only non-liberal ideology, there are Islamism, Marxism, conspiracism among others. A lot of people you call liberal believe that the mainstream is right-wing and see the liberal view as middle ground. Anyway, changing weight requires re-writing reliable sources policy. TFD (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There's an observation I'd like to make here, speaking as someone who would definitely be considered "liberal" on this spectrum by most people. It is not simply a matter of "liberal" sources outweighing conservative ones on WP. After all, the reliable sources do seem to carry that bias, and it doesn't normally cause a problem. Facts are facts, and it is commonly (light-heartedly) suggested (perhaps not as often now as 5 or 10 years ago) that "reality has a liberal bias". Many of you have likely seen this infographic that made the rounds a few months back.

However, it would be wrong to conclude from this evidence that a source that appeals to right-wing sensibilities is inherently less trustworthy or to be cast into suspicion. And herein lies the problem: I have noticed a tendency for "conservative" sources to be explicitly labelled as such in main article text, while "liberal" sources are not thus labelled. This is, in my mind, a clear systemic bias: the "conservative" tag functions as a scarlet letter, appealing towards a presumed liberal audience, by reminding them that a generally dissenting (due to the oppositional nature of American politics), minority (by necessity of the weight of reliable sources) view in an article is attributed to "the enemy".

I'd also like to quickly note, as a Canadian, that this discussion tends to be overwhelmingly US-centric. I saw that WikiProject:Countering Systemic Bias was invited to this discussion (which is actually why I'm here - I'd originally planned to raise the issue with them directly), and certainly they ought to be concerned with that aspect of how politics are presented in Wikipedia, if nothing else. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean very different things in different parts of the world; for American editors to label sources as "conservative" therefore has the potential to mislead.

(For what it's worth, my impression of the US political system is that they are playing good cop/bad cop by allowing the media to pander to sometimes-very-far left ideologues while both major political parties generally skew right - and either way, it is really the upper classes who profit while the have-nots are distracted by infighting about "privilege" etc. Canada is not entirely immune to these effects, but at least the New Democratic Party is viable.) 70.24.6.180 (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident

Hello. As a member of WP Conservatism, I am adding the WP tag to the talkpage of 2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident, as I believe it is relevant to our project, in terms of the constitution and freedom of speech. I have been asked by editors on the article talkpage to censor my comment here, so I am censoring this right here. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Request help with Southern Strategy page

Recently I have tried to add some descending views to the Southern Strategy article. I feel like the editors who are watching the article are very quick to try to tear down articles which refute the general thrust of the article but very tolerant of poorly referenced claims or articles that support the racist GOP plan hypothesis. I can understand that the editors with a particular bias (we all have biases so that is not meant as an attack) would be more likely to tend articles of interest to them. That said, I would appreciate any help that can be offered as I'm sure I'm not as good at navigating the world of wikipedia when compared to the other editors. This article was previously cited as being of concern and the article talk page makes that history clear. [[1]] --Getoverpops (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton

Interested project members are welcome to join WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, a collaborative project dedicated to improving Wikipedia articles related to HRC. Joining the project is in no way an endorsement of her or her political positions; in fact, it would be great to have people with a variety of political ideologies participating for the sake of NPOV. There are many articles to work on, and certainly she will be in the news for the foreseeable future, so thank you for your consideration. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Bandy ball

I am curious – this is funny – about why bandy ball was listed as a new article relevant to this project. :-) Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 19:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

RfD notification: Conservative news

Conservative news has been nominated at RfD. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 27#Conservative news would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Request re-assessment for article, Carly Fiorina

I've been working on the article regarding Carly Fiorina over the last month, as well as making a few changes and improvements; but, I've also realized that this article is still marked as "low importance in the WikiProject Conservatism. It also has no such rating for WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Women writers. Yet, I've realized that as of April 2015 (especially) it has been intimated that Firorina will campaign for a 2016 GOP Presidential nomination, although it does not seem to be officially confirmed; meanwhile, the page currently says that she "actively seeking," which seems to be an adequate description, since she appears to be making strong and more visible talking points in the media. Despite criticism and many past failures in electoral politics, Fiorina is considered a main public figure and, if in any regards, a Vice Presidential possibility by some people's standards, as well as having a career as a conservative pundit. It is my belief that Fiorina should have a higher ranking than "low." In most of these Wikipedia projects, I believe she should at least be at the next level, "Mid-importance." Ca.papavero (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Request assessment: [[]]

It is requested that a member assess the quality and/or importance of the following article:

Page: Carly Fiorina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Requester: [[user:{{subst:Ca.papavero}}]]

Comments:

Re-confirm my request from the section above. A few things have since happened; but, altogether not yet resolved. Especially for this project on Conservatism. Thanks! Ca.papavero (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

Please be aware that there is currently a deletion discussion regarding the above-named new Hillary Rodham Clinton WikiProject, which was announced previously at this talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Americans for Prosperity#one of the most influential

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#one of the most influential. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment notice: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election from Koch-related funds

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please contribute to the request for comment. Thanks.- Mr X 20:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Request assessment: New Labour, New Danger

It is requested that a member assess the quality and/or importance of the following article:

Comments:

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
When? June 2015
How can you help?
1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole

Hello. Feel free to help me expand Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole with referenced info. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of far right label for Freedom Caucus

Please take part in a discussion at Talk:Freedom Caucus on whether it is correct to say in Wikipedia's voice that the caucus is a far right organization. Iselilja (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration nomination: Center for Security Policy

MZMcBride

To join this collaboration sign below. The collaboration is certified when 3 editors join.

Participants

MZMcBride

Comments

The Center for Security Policy is a Conservative national security think tank, which appears to have been taken over by biased left wing editors (two in particular) who are very possessive of the article and have consistently deleted and/or reverted legitimate citations and edits.2601:14D:4101:3835:D1FE:210F:D168:41F7 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Two redirects at RfD

I've nominated two redirects to Compassionate conservatism at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 11. Your input there would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC

Hello there! There's an ongoing RfC concerning Paul Singer and WP:NPOV in a broader sense, that you might care to comment on. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 22:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Clare Boothe Luce Award winners has been nominated for discussion

Category:Clare Boothe Luce Award winners, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Notification of run-off vote

There is currently a poll taking place regarding the infobox image at the Donald Trump article talk page that project members might be interested in here. The polling is set to conclude on September 20, 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Anarch (sovereign individual)

Any input would be appreciated:

Talk:Anarch_(sovereign_individual)#Purpose_of_the_article.

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Islamist Terrorist attacks RfC

There is a discussion ongoing at List of Islamist terrorist attacks on whether to add the July 2016 Nice attack to the list. This wikiproject is listed on the talk page as an interested group. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Request assessment: Stephen Bannon

It is requested that a member assess the quality and/or importance of the following article:

Comments:
Request reassessment ASAP. This is obviously not a "low importance" individual to this project. - Brianhe (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 12 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Why it's so austere?

This portal doesn't look like the other portals on wikipedia, not as eye candy, it really misses illustrations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:A812:34D1:1CA9:6446 (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

January, 2017 Presidential inauguration

In case anyone has input on whether the upcoming inauguration should be mentioned on the main page: Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items#United States Presidential inauguration. - Brianhe (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh's article is biased against him

See its talk page for how to resolve the issue. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Margaret Thatcher

Please see the discussion at Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Public image of Margaret Thatcher. Comments are much welcome.--Nevé –selbert 15:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments on RfC Donald Trump requested

There is currently an RfC about the outcome of the presidential election here. Participation would be appreciated. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Literary conservative authors

I have stumbled upon an article about literary conservative authors. I wonder if we could use it as a reference for Conservatism, or create a separate article:

Ganesh, Janan (January 20, 2017). "In praise of literary conservatives". Financial Times. Retrieved January 24, 2017.

Let me know what you think, and please ping me when you reply! Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right bias and what do you guys think?

Hey guys, I'm a Democrat and I value free thinking and what people have to say. I read the article for alt-right and expected to learn why a LGBT man like Milo Yiannopolous would support a "racist" movement coined by a white supremacist. I figured out that the article is basically just a rebranding of why white supremacy is bad and it honestly raised my suspicions on the NPOV of the subject. Obviously Spencer is a racist, but it seems alot of people don't view the movement that way and have a "freedom of speech" mentality. This interests me alot but what I don't want to hear is activist people telling me stuff I already know. I want to hear the whole story from experts on the subject who have a level-headed bias free view. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 01:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming

"420 collaboration",

which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.

WikiProject Conservatism participants may be particularly interested in the following category: Category:Cannabis politics.

For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Request assessment: Margaret Thatcher

It is requested that a member assess the quality and/or importance of the following article:

Page: Margaret Thatcher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Requester: [[user:{{subst:MalnadachBot}}]]

Comments:
I have requested a review of said article for WP:ACLASS status at Talk:Margaret Thatcher#A-Class proposal, currently supported by two uninvolved editors.--Nevé –selbert 15:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Request assessment: Wayne Dupree

WP article Wayne Dupree was nominated for deletion. Article is about a black conservative radio host and Trump supporter. Asking for assistance to assess the quality and importance of the article and whether it passes muster that Dupree is a notable person.Cllgbksr (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Image

I noticed the image for this WikiProject is a blue flag waving. Wouldn't a red flag make more sense? TheDracologist (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC

The RfC located here may be of interest to members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Opportunity to participate in upcoming collaboration to improve cannabis-related articles

Not sure why, but I posted an invitation to participate in the upcoming "420 collaboration" to create and improve articles related to cannabis, but my message was immediately archived. The campaign lasts just 2 weeks, so can't the invite be archived after then? If project members are interested, especially in Category:Cannabis politics, you are welcome to help. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Silly me, I have doubts that a group of editors organized around conservatism want to participate in an edit-a-thon about weed. I think you've confused this group with the libertarians. Your invite is tone--deaf in that regard. I noticed you spamming various WT pages about it, so it's not as if the word isn't getting out. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You shouldn't doubt that people interested in conservatism are not also interested in cannabis politics, nor accuse me of being tone deaf. Folks can write about anti-drug policies and organizations if they prefer. I don't think one editor should be policing how editors can participate in content collaborations. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Congressional Institute

Hello! I'm looking for editors who might be interested in helping me update the Congressional Institute article. As part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have drafted an updated and expanded article on behalf of the Institute. That draft is here, but there is more explanation about it in my Talk page note here. Due to my COI I won't edit the article directly, so I'm looking for neutral editors to review this draft. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 12/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Conservatism, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence discussion at Talk:Breitbart News

Hello. I opened the discussion about the opening sentence of "Breitbart News" at "Talk:Breitbart News#Reinsert "described as" in opening sentence?". Join in. --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right sidebar

I posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics a few days ago and haven't seen any response, so also adding it here in the hope that some additional experienced editors can evaluate what I perceive to be some fundamental issues with Template:Alt-right sidebar, which has recently been added to several articles. Many of the articles it includes look to me to have very little, if any, connection to the alt-right. It seems like it was entirely based on WP:OR, and the template creator has indicated on the talk page that he/she plans to remove items he/she disagrees with. My question for this group is whether you think it's an appropriate navigational template in general (i.e. whether it should be radically pruned, deleted, or incorporated into, say, Template:Conservatism US) or whether it should be sent to MfD. At this point, I'm leaning towards the latter, but I'm hesitating because it may be able to be reworked into something a bit better. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rhododendrites. I agree that the template has too broad of a scope, and is organized in an excessively opinionated way. Still, I think it is useful to have. By the way, what do people here think of creating a Wikiproject to meet the demand for encyclopedic coverage of the alt-right? Since alt-right emerged from dissatisfaction with conservatism, I think organizing from this Wikiproject is inadequate. Rigley (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of a Wikiproject page

See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/Incubator. Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Our American Revival

Our American Revival needs a major clean-up (or an AfD) if anyone has time for it...Zigzig20s (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ideology of Drudge Report

You are invited to participate in the RfC at Talk:Drudge Report#RfC: Should the article say that Drudge Report has been described as far-right?. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC for pedophilia terminology at the Milo Yiannopoulos article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#RfC: Should the article include text/sources analyzing Yiannopoulos's statements on pedophilia?. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not to mention that sources note that Yiannopoulos's definition of pedophilia is technically correct, but also that the term is used more broadly than the technical definition (to include adults engaging in sexual activity with minors, or specifically committing child sexual abuse). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Conservatism

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 14:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Intersectionality article - Will you take a look?

I just added a POV tag ("The neutrality of this article is disputed.") to Intersectionality. I suggested on the article's Talk page, under Neutral point of view?, that we work on integrating critiques of this theory into the body of the article. The goal is balance, fairness, and objectivity. Please take a look to see if you might be able to help. [Note: I want to attract editors who are committed to civility, fairness, and a scholarly approach, regardless of political ideology. The objective is to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.] Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Election box for Momentum

A discussion is currently taking place about the election box for Momentum. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Request assessment: The People's Cube

It is requested that a member assess the quality and/or importance of the following article:

Request assessment: Michael J. Knowles

It is requested that a member assess the quality and/or importance of the following article:

Comments:

Reliability of TheBlaze

Editors here are invited to participate in WP:RSN#TheBlaze. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article?

Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article RfC? Springee (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? Hires an editor (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Erickson

Caroline456 and I could use some eyes on the new article Paul Erickson, where we've run into a whole bunch of neutrality-related issues. This is an article about a South Dakota Republican operative who's received a lot of news coverage recently in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Sharon Statement nominated for deletion

Sharon Statement is a High Importance article at this WikiProject. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Statement.– Lionel^(talk) 07:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion regarding deletion of Portal:Conservatism

A discussion is taking place as to whether all portals on Wikipedia including Portal:Conservatism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia or whether they should be deleted.

The portals will be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Portal:Conservatism is a Featured Portal and under the stewardship of WikiProject Conservatism.– Lionel^(talk) 12:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Laura Loomer

You are invited to join the discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding Laura Loomer. – Lionel^(talk) 04:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on The Ingraham Angle

You are invited to join the discussion at this Request For Comment on The Ingraham Angle. Regarding removal of the advertisers. – Lionel^(talk) 06:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notification

There is an RfC at the Sean Hannity article talk page members of this project might interested in taking part in here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on CNN

We have an RfC taking place at Talk:CNN#Survey. I'm not really sure what the difference is between a survey and an RfC, but there are two sections on our page. Trying to rework the lede, but it's getting a little heated so any help in taking down the temperature a notch would be most welcomed. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE

RfC Notification

There is an RfC at the John Bolton article talk page members of this project might interested in taking part in here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Content discussion notification

There is an informal RfC/discussion at the Diamond and Silk article talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notification

There is an RfC at the Trump-Russia dossier talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Brand new articles to improve--can you help?

We have two new stubs that would be fun to expand. Each has three reliable sources. Great candidates for DYK. What is DYK? See our entertaining guide here "DYK For Newbies."

– Lionel^(talk) 11:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC Notification

There is an RfC at the Diamond and Silk talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Liberal bias in academia listed at Requested moves (rename article)

A Requested move discussion (rename article) has been initiated for Liberal bias in academia. Please join the discussion here. This article averages 3,136 pageviews every month. – Lionel^(talk) 12:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a status update: the page was moved. There are still a number of discussions about the future of the article taking place at Talk:Political views of American academics. -- Netoholic @ 08:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Update pages

This WikiProject was created 7 years ago. There have been many changes to WikiProject architecture. Examples include incubators being replaced by DRAFT space, several bots were retired resulting in broken reports, the newsletter delivery bot was retired. But the most exciting development is the new page design to come out of work done by the WikiProject X team. An example is here. I propose we update the project. Who wants to help? – Lionel^(talk) 09:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Updated Assessment page!

We now have an updated page for Assessments. It is streamlined and has fewer buttons and expended info on how to assess articles. It also utilizes the new header, which is based on WikiProject X.

Why does a WikiProject have Assessment? Apart from keeping statistical data, promoting to B-Class requires an independent reviewer, and A-Class requires two independent reviewers. Also articles assessed as Top-importance are candidates for the Template:Conservatism. – Lionel^(talk) 09:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Informal RfC discussion on WP:UNDUE at Talk:Liberty University

There is an informal/unofficial RfC at the Liberty University talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

NOTE Discussion has just been made into an official RfC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Elections season

Another election season in the United States, another round of watching editors add controversies, or expand on content which may place the subject of the article in a negative light, to the articles of candidates with an R by their name that are already sufficiently notable to have an article. -sigh- Just venting, as I have largely reduced my editing of political articles in my recent expansion of activity.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: your warning was prescient. Fox News just reported that Google listed "Nazism" as the ideology of the California Republican Party! --"Google under fire for listing 'Nazism' as the ideology of the California Republican Party." The source for the Nazism label was Wikipedia. What Fox didn't mention is that the CA primaries were last Tuesday. Uh oh. Pinging @Netoholic: who has some experience with the nonexistent bias at WP. – Lionel^(talk) 05:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there? It's an interesting topic for academic study. I'm sure any findings of such a systemic ideological bias would be eagerly embraced by the community, since I'm sure we wouldn't collectively want to risk losing sight of such a core policy as NPOV, and might inform us of measures we could take to address it, just like the measures we take on gender, race, and other systemic biases. -- Netoholic @ 06:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

National Black Republican Association needs editors

A brand new editor @Splashdw: is expanding National Black Republican Association which is a stub. They need our help. The good news is since this is a stub with a little bit of work it could be nominated for Did You Know for Main Page fame and glory! Check out DYK_For_Newbies.

– Lionel^(talk) 12:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Richard B. Spencer

There is an RfC at the Richard B. Spencer talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Um, I don't think Spencer falls under "conservatism." – Lionel^(talk) 07:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: June 2018 is out now!

From the Editor: The Right Stuff Returns
Arbitration Report: Russian Agents Editing at American Politics?
In the Media: Breitbart Versus Wikipedia
Discussion Report: Liberty and Trump and Avi, Oh my!

* Read The Right Stuff in full * Get The Right Stuff delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 07:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy?

You are invited to join the discussion at talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy?. - Mr X 🖋 18:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Death of Charles Krauthammer

The death of the preeminent columnist has created intense interest in his article and heavy editing (Hot articles report). Please keep an eye on vandalism (history). On June 8 pageviews spiked at 300,000 and we can expect to exceed that due to his death.

The article has been nominated for In the news (ITN). Feel free to comment on the discussion here Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD:_Charles_Krauthammer. In order to be listed on the Main page the article will require some referencing work. If you have time please add references to Charles Krauthammer. Thank you. – Lionel^(talk) 10:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The ITN nomination is now stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Chele Farley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chele Farley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chele Farley until a consensus is reached.

The nominator made this interesting observation in favor of Keeping: "This is in effect a test case for the interaction of WP:NPOL and WP:GNG This person does not pass NPOL, being a candidate who has never held elective office, but is the formally nominated candidate of a major party (and two minor parties as well) for the US Senate from a major state. If any candidate were to be notable purely for being a candidate, Farley would seem to qualify." – Lionel^(talk) 11:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Have the other Wikiprojects related to the article been notified? –dlthewave ☎ 15:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher promoted to A-Class

Huge congrats to Neveselbert for successfully guiding Margaret Thatcher through the A-Class Review process. Margaret Thatcher is the first article to be nominated at the brand new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class Review. There is only one other WikiProject offering A-Class reviews, WP Military History.

What is A-Class? A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featured article). The criteria are here. Here are some of the benefits:

Currently we have no wait! GA and FA can take weeks or months before the review gets underway.
Reviewers are drawn from your colleagues right here at WikiProject Conservatism
For lists, since lists do not quality for GA, A-Class is a great interim step before FL (Featured list)

Our A-Class Review is designed with collaboration in mind. So find an article and post an invitation for fellow members to join you in nominating the article.– Lionel^(talk) 10:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

A-Class is implemented in our WikiProject talkpage banner. However the list version of A-Class is not. Unless there are any objections I'll have it added to the banner.– Lionel^(talk) 06:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Laura Ingraham

There is a discussion at the Laura Ingraham talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Trump administration family separation policy

There is a discussion at the Trump administration family separation policy talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"I am interested in working on..."

I was surprised to see a number of highly biased and battleground-style statements within this project's member list. Here are a few of the most blatant:

"The Wikipedia is full of Fabian gradualists and Alinskyite confrontationalists, so when they push left, it is good to be among editors who push right back. Remember - WP:NOTTRUTH.
"Focused on revealing leftists in the American and international sociopolitical scenes."
"I am interested in defending Conservatism everywhere!"
"I am interested in adding a conservative balance to Wikipedia, politics, and assisting in resolving consensus, disputes against those of liberal bias, as well as pursuing liberal sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and countering liberal "senior editor" vandalism, harrassment, and NPOV via WP:GAME."

It appears that only a small minority are making these statements, but it reflects poorly on the project as a whole. I wanted to point this out so that members can work to avoid the appearance of POV pushing within the project. –dlthewave ☎ 22:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop trolling. What possible response other than complete disregard could you expect from this post? Do you actually expect other members here to do anything in particular or are you just venting and carrying over that stupid-as-hell ANI thread here. No one here is interested in avoiding the appearance of POV pushing - editors should always simply avoid POV pushing at all - but its funny you're the second person to phrase it like that today.

You want to avoid POV pushing? In the future use this talk page to invite members from this WikiProject to help when you're working on your next article, in order to incorporate their feedback and viewpoints to balance with your own. But don't come back if you're just going to spew WP:ASPERSIONS and incite negative feelings. -- Netoholic @ 03:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: Yes, I would expect members of this project to speak out against others who expressly state an intention to misuse the project for POV pushing. –dlthewave ☎ 15:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not trolling, and calling it that is just the kind of thing that raises concerns about this project. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

4 statements among 115 participants? Yes, it's trolling. Cherry picking does not a general rule make. I can pick as many "neutral" editors that have made anti-conservative statements within the last 6 months easily. Including at least one administrator that had quit a bit to say about Republicans and the NRA a few months ago on an ANI thread. If you want evidence that this WikiProject has a conservative bias, you'll need more than 3.47% of participants making inappropriate comments.

I can't even believe I have to point this out. Talk about grasping at straws.--v/r - T P 19:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that the OP said It appears that only a small minority are making these statements, but it reflects poorly on the project as a whole. I wanted to point this out so that members can work to avoid the appearance of POV pushing within the project, I think that you are being more defensive than necessary, and I also think that it would be helpful for the editors who participate in this project to be aware of how their intentions can be misunderstood when a few of them say such things. And, if you are concerned (quite validly, in my opinion) that there is also non-neutrality coming from the other "side", please remember that two wrongs do not make a right. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You're of course right, Tryptofish. But this project has been the target of attacks in the past. I get that Dlthewave is trying to put some polish on it, but I also feel like he's using a microscope to find a smudge. If there are no major problems that stand out without careful scrutiny, then I think the project is doing well. If this project isn't creating ARS levels of drama, it's successful.--v/r - T P 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@TParis: Frankly, editors should be concerned about any such statements on our project pages. –dlthewave ☎ 19:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel that way about the project as a whole and police the whole thing before you start scoping in on one specific flavor.--v/r - T P 20:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Close - One of our esteemed members has bravely reached out to these individuals and suggested they update their entries. Its good that they took that initiative themselves. This ridiculous thread is now moot. -- Netoholic @ 21:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

How should we handle Patriot1010 (contribs) and Light-jet pilot (contribs) who both appear to be inactive? I propose removing their statements. –dlthewave ☎ 21:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment - It's amazing how history repeats itself. No other WikiProject has faced such scrutiny as this one, and frankly it's been shown to be unwarranted. I'd suggest looking at other political WikiProjects: WikiProject Socialism has several similar ones, and they have never to my knowledge faced such scrutiny.

"Member of Workers Power Britain"

"I am interested in spreading awareness about alternatives to the predominant model of history and political theory. Focus on European Parliamentary political & social history, -- stressing the power inherent in poetry art & folklore & furthermore achieving synthesis between thought & agency (praxis)."

"Marxist, knowledgeable about Socialist thought, Communist thought, dialectical materialism, Marxian economics, Luxemburgism, libertarian socialism, et al."

"Particularly interested in anarcho-communism and green communism. A passionate adherent of anarcho-primitivism."

How about WikiProject LGBT Studies?

I am a supporter of Equal Rights, an LGBTI activist from India."

"Uk based LGBT rights activist/Phd student/teacher"

"i am bisexual myself and had sex with a man so i have first on experiance and my wife is bi herself to and had sex with a women and she also has her own on account wikipedia is our hobbie and we both like the same things WE CAN BOTH HELP with Bisexual Articles"

"I'm passionate about LGBTQ+ visibility in media and popular culture."

"15 year old homosexual and proud of it!"

"As a gay person myself, I'm proud to improve the overall quality of LGBT articles in Wikipedia. Whenever I see cleanup requests found by the Bot I try my best to fulfill them. I am also able to translate to Malay and Chinese for articles if needed."

"I'm a queer trans woman named Rebecca. I'm passionate about chipping away at the systemic biases of cissexism and transphobia that exist on Wikipedia. I'm interested in creating and expanding biography articles on notable trans* individuals, making sure trans* articles follow the MOS:IDENTITY guidelines, and rewriting or removing unsourced, cissexist POV statements such as "born male" or "biological female" from trans*-related articles."

What about WikiProject Islam?

"InshaAllah hope to contribute my bit towards putting forth authentic Islamic viewpoints wherever possible."

"I am a Muslim, and I try to do what I can to present Islam in an accurate way."

"Long time convert to Islam, particularily frustrated with right-wingers trying to distort Islam or certain Islamic movements in wikipedia."

None of these WikiProjects have been demanded to purge their membership of people, and they shouldn't have to. But if we're going to present this idea of projects that have a few members who said questionable things in their statement, this can't be the only one you look at. Toa Nidhiki05 01:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

All: The statement "Focused on revealing leftists in the American and international sociopolitical scenes." is mine. I applaud the other statements that Dlthewave is accusing of being "inappropriate POV pushing", and I applaud the responses from Netoholic, TParis ("TP") and Toa Nidhiki05. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: (responding to your invitation on my user talk page) I cite from WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)." Since when have WikiProject pages been regarded as encyclopedic content? In my humble opinion, anyone who regards my statement and the others that you cited with it as inappropriate POV pushing misunderstands what constitutes inappropriate POV pushing. I'll agree that my statement is bold and potentially offensive to those who are opposed to my worldview...but such boldness and potential offensiveness doesn't make me guilty of pushing, or even intending to push, POV in my encyclopedic edits. Indeed, I've been a member of Wikipedia for 13 years, and I don't recall having been accused ever of pushing POV in the encyclopedic content (but I'll own it if you happen to find and point out proof of it). And if my statement in the member list worries you, you shouldn't read my POV-soaked main user page and "about me" page. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there is POV pushing against conservatism. And it's a good thing to NPOV it. But it's important not to further POV it in the opposite direction, because (as I said earlier) two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that members within this project took a second look at those few member statements is a good thing, and I thank you for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

And anyone who is concerned that this project is the only one that gets so much scrutiny should look at the history of the Article Rescue Squad. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave, I hate to say it, but this looks like cherry-picking to defame the project. While the 4 examples cited are worryingly WP:BATTLEGROUND-ish, you could've taken that up with the 4 individual users themselves on their talk pages. I would suggest closing this thread, nothing good can come from it. (Disclaimer: I'm not a member of this project, nor am I a conservative... at all.) Nanophosis (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject appears to be gaining steam again, another call to delete or admonish its members occurs again. What is old is new. -sigh-
Thanks to those who defend the validity of this WikiProject and hopefully content improvement in a neutral well sourced manner can occur for those articles that fall within this WikiProject's scope.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking for a few good editors for RFA

For a number of years we have been experiencing a steady decline in the number of administrators as a result of attrition and a declining number of editors willing to consider adminship. Things have reached a point where we are starting to experience chronic backlogs in important areas of the project including noticeboards, requests for closure, SPI, CSD & etc.

Many members of WikiProject Conservatism edit in controversial topic areas and this experience makes us uniquely qualified to be admins. Our understanding of content and behavioral policies is more comprehensive then the typical editor. Another advantage is our grasp of the workings of the bureaucracy and noticeboards.

If you are an experienced editor with around two years (or more) of tenure, 10k edits give or take and no record of seriously disruptive behavior, please consider if you might be willing to help out the community by becoming an administrator. The community can only function as well as we all are willing to participate. If you are interested start by reading WP:MOP and WP:RFAADVICE. Then go to WP:ORCP and open a discussion. Over the next few days experienced editors will take a look at your record and let you know what they think your chances are of passing RfA (the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia) as well as provide you with feedback on areas that might be of concern and how to prepare yourself. Lastly you can find a list of experienced editors who may be willing to nominate you here or just ask me. Good luck! – Lionel^(talk) 07:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Wikiproject Conservatism? Could the fact that you were also editing the Lambden "study" today, which is trying to prove that current admins are liberally biased in their actions, be related? O3000 (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. The preliminary findings of the research study are that "Admins appear to be adjudicating cases in an impartial manner." – Lionel^(talk) 11:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been watching that study, and haven't seen that conclusion stated there. Where does it say that? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll answer my own question: it doesn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There's a writeup on the talk page that makes a number of striking observations. –dlthewave ☎ 21:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What an embarrassing summary. Yes, striking -- strikingly absurd. I strongly suggest the author self-delete. O3000 (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but that wasn't its raison d'être if you examine its genesis. O3000 (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Why post this at WikiProject Conservatism? Why not? (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#HELP_WANTED)

This looks like a transparent attempt to stack the deck based on flawed research. Very bad form.- Mr X 🖋 13:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem created a Help Wanted notice which they've added to a number of Wikiprojects without any apparent bias. Lionelt's version appears to be an exact copy except for the bit about WikiProject Conservatism. I don't have an opinion on the matter at this point, –dlthewave ☎ 16:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

John Key listed at GAR

John Key has been listed at Good Article Review. The discussion to determine if the article will retain GA rating is here. John Key was the former prime minister of New Zealand; the article is assessed as High-importance.– Lionel^(talk) 10:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Winston Churchill - reference probems

There are a number of unresolved reference problems on Winston Churchill. Please see the thread at Talk:Winston Churchill#Sources. Your attention would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh

President Trump has nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. He will establish a solid conservative majority on the Court for decades and Democrats fear this could result in the overturning of Roe v Wade and have vowed to vehemently fight the nomination. We can expect increased editing as well as increased pageviews at the article for the next two months at least. Your help is needed to keep the article in compliance with our policies.

Please review how to spot and how to respond to vandalism WP:HTSV
Consider installing a tool to help fight vandalism WP:CUV/T
Expect a Discretionary Sanctions notice to be placed on the article. Gorsuch has a Consensus required 1RR notice. If this happens be sure to review our DS FAQ

– Lionel^(talk) 01:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Gateway Pundit

There is a discussion at the The Gateway Pundit talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

concervative economics

How does conservatism and keynesian economics work together47.153.166.83 (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:REFDESK, this project is designed to improve content on articles that fall within its scope.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Article idea

Perhaps an article about Political violence in the United States during the 21st Century. The topic surely has received significant coverage, and is neutral, so could include both violance emanating from the Right of the political spectrum in the United States, and violence emanating from the Left of the political spectrum in the United States. Brietbart keeps a [https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/07/05/rap-sheet-acts-of-media-approved-violence-and-harassment-against-trump-supporters/ running list]; while some are not what I consider actual violence targeted at those on the Right, it does link to some reliable sources verifying certain specific events (such as the Trump supporters attacked after rallys in Orange County and San Jose). The Daily Caller also does the same. There are also articles about concerns about Antifa: LA Times, Vox, Time, Chicago Tribune. Not that the Right is clean of violence, as claimed by The Nation, and as studied by the United States Military Acadamy, and written about by professors at The Conversation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest not using Breitbart as a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I was not suggesting using the Brietbart or The Daily Caller list directly. What I was suggesting was looking at the list, which includes links to more mainstream reliable sources, such as local news organizations, also the list can be used to find more mainstream reliable sources about the stated events on the list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. (I don't know why, but the ping did not reach me.) That's fine, although one should still be careful that their links to other sources may not be properly balanced. It also occurs to me that it would be useful to look at how existing pages treat political violence in the US during previous centuries. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiConference North America 2018 submission

Please see a submission at WikiConference North America 2018.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I encourage editors to attend this talk and share their experiences, as RightCowLeftCoast has encountered significant resistance when attempting to use certain right-of-center sources. Will there be a slideshow that folks who aren't going can view on Commons? –dlthewave ☎ 17:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Split proposal: "German opposition to Nazism" and "German resistance to Hitler"

See Talk:German resistance to Nazism#Split proposal: "German opposition to Nazism" and "German resistance to Hitler" for a discussion of the proposal to split German resistance to Nazism. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:PragerU#Shadow banning

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:PragerU#Shadow banning. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there is a weird amount of resistance to the plain facts of the event, even to what people were claiming had happened. Strange hill for them to die on. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Identitarianism

I'm trying to help create a more balanced view of Identitarianism. I've been edited out of existence two or three times, and now some progressives are trying very hard to edit the article to be a virtual mirror of Identitarian movement. I could use some help to flesh this article out, thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "some progressives"? What is your view about the purpose of WikiProject Conservatism? O3000 (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean there are some who are making politically-motivated edits to the article because they disagree with it, while justifying their actions in Wikipedia beauracratic-speak. DavidBailey (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:AGF. I see absolutely no evidence that any of the editors that you are debating with are doing anything of the kind. O3000 (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

And that's your opinion. Those who seek political balance (e.g. WP:NPOV) in an article might see it differently than you. Which is why I posted here. DavidBailey (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so now I am not interested in NPOV? And you came here specifically to WP:canvass "non-progressive" editors to counter what you perceive as a hotbed of progressives? O3000 (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to view the article and edits in question? If it's not being edited completely out of existence by editors who disagree with the premise that identitarianism can mean anything other than white nationalism, it's having nearly all the content making these points stripped out of the article. So I'm not canvassing, I'm seeking people to help balance the article. e.g. WP:NPOV DavidBailey (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious why one would come to WikiProject Conservatism to gain a more balanced perspective instead of, say, WikiProject Sociology which the article is actually within the scope of. This project is for improving coverage of Conservatism-related topics; it's not meant to be a place to find conservative-minded editors. I would strongly discourage the use of this talk page for these canvassing activities. –dlthewave ☎ 14:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

As the Identitarian article states, it's a matter of sociology with strong links to political movements. I am not cavassing, I'm trying to get people who have non-progressive views to bring a political balance to the article. Those who were watching the Identitarian Movement article and now Identitarianism appear to be strong progressives in political views and seem unified in their desire to strip all non-progressive views of Identitarianism from the article. Perhaps it makes sense to tag the article with political categories as well as sociological ones as well. DavidBailey (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok..so you're canvassing. You're specifically trying to get people with certain viewpoints to join the discussion, that's the definition of canvassing, messages sent with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate; you're trying to influence the discussion so it no longer has a consensus to remove the content; per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification you're engaging in votestacking and campaigning, types of canvassing, by sending a non-neutral message to an audience you know is partisan Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. I'm trying to get anyone with any different viewpoints than those who are besieging the page right now. My goal is to create a page from a neutral point of view, not to espouse any particular one. I keep getting shut down by a small group of editors that all have the same point of view. DavidBailey (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I have put a note at the article talk page, so that editors there will be aware of the posting here. I took a brief look at the talk there, and it looks as though there is a consensus among multiple editors, with DavidBailey the only editor who disagrees. I would also suggest that any request for editors to help with NPOV balance could be posted at WP:NPOVN. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I made a request on WP:NPOVN. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/LPOV

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/LPOV

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/LPOV is an old neglected page, virtually never viewed, except for after being listed at MfD. Is it work fixing the perceived flaws? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Buck Sexton Article missing

I have no idea how his page got deleted, but Buck Sexton, host of the Buck Sexton Show, former host at TheBlaze, CNN political Analyst, CIA analyst, and current co-host of Rising on TheHill.tv could someone help me fix this, much less popular people have articles.--MilkFghy (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This project is about improving articles related to conservatism, not a club for conservatives. If you have come here in an attempt to overturn a community decision on an AfD, that would appear to be WP:CANVASSING. Such arguments can be stated in an AfD or an appeal to an AfD. O3000 (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@MilkFghy: (edit conflict) First, no one has a page on Wikipedia; rather, Wikipedia has articles about people. Second, Wikipedians curate this encyclopedia and make decisions about what stays and what goes. For that reason, the article about Buck Sexton was deleted. Like most journalists and talking heads, Sexton created content but no one writes about Sexton. He is not, therefore, notable. The argument that there are articles about others is invalid. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --Izno Repeat (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Hawaii Tea Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hawaii Tea Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaii Tea Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be about conservatism in one country?

Almost everything in this project page discusses US issues. There is mention of Teresa May and a few other UK conservatives/issues, but very little about broader - international - conservatism.

If the project page is intended as US-centric, then its name should reflect this. If not, then it needs a thorough review to include international perspectives. 124.171.101.85 (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

That is a valid criticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a very clear statement of what this project is about. Our scope is conservatism, broadly defined, around the world. If you feel an area isn’t covered adequately, you’re more than welcome to work on it. Toa Nidhiki05 13:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is currently a discussion at Anne Coulter regarding whether "sodomy" or "same-sex sexual intercourse" should be used when describing Coulter's opinion. Interested editors may join the conversation here. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Republican Party (United States)

There is currently a discussion on Talk:Republican Party (United States) regarding phrasing about climate change denial. Interested editors are welcome to comment. Toa Nidhiki05 13:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)