Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Right)
"WP:RIGHT" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:Right (disambiguation).



Shortcut

Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where editors can easily ask questions, meet new colleagues and join A-Team collaborations to create prestigious, high quality A-Class articles. Whether you're a newcomer or regular, you'll receive encouragement and recognition for your achievements with conservatism-related articles. This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian.

  • Have you thought about submitting your new article to "Did You Know"? It's the easiest and funnest way to get your creation on the Main Page. More info can be found in our guide "DYK For Newbies."
  • We're happy to assess your new article as well as developed articles. Make a request here.
  • Experienced editors may want to jump right in and join an A-Team. While A-Class is more rigorous than a Good Article, you don't have to deal with the lengthy backlog at GA. If you already have an article you would like to promote, you can post a request for co-nominators here.
  • Do you have a question? Just ask

Alerts[edit]

Articles needing attention
Conservatism articles needing expert attention
Jatiya Party (Ershad)
Douglas Murray (author)
National conservatism
Bart Jan Spruyt
Doug Wardlow
Bill Whatcott

Articles for deletion

  • 11 Jul 2024 – Republicans pounce (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Aquillion (t · c); see discussion (7 participants)
  • 03 Jul 2024 – Coalition to Reduce Spending (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Ticoeditor (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 13 Jul 2024; see discussion (4 participants; relisted)
  • 02 Jul 2024 – National Popular Consciousness (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by D.S. Lioness (t · c) was closed as keep by CanonNi (t · c) on 10 Jul 2024; see discussion (7 participants)

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Other alerts
Deletion sorting/Conservatism

Conservatism[edit]

Republicans pounce[edit]

Republicans pounce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is essentially about a handful of disconnected opinion pieces, with only one or two non-opinion pieces briefly criticizing them. There's almost no non-opinion coverage of the topic, and most of the individual opinion pieces are only using the term briefly while focusing on a more specific issue. It also over-represents the views of a tiny number of news outlets; the opinion pieces are lopsided representations of the Washington Examiner and the National Review. It's not appropriate to make a Wikipedia article for every opinion-piece talking point, especially ones that have failed to attract significant secondary or WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Aquillion (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article's creator.
There's almost no non-opinion coverage of the topic See these articles which engage in an analysis of the phenomenon itself:
most of the individual opinion pieces are only using the term briefly Clearly not true. There are multiple opinion articles which do not merely use the term, but discuss the overall phenomenon as their primary focus:
It also over-represents the views of a tiny number of news outlets The "Analysis" section is a fair balance of the opinion sources I found when researching the topic, per WP:DUE. It is not surprising that more right-leaning commentators would discuss this phenomenon than left-leaning ones, nor that their views would appear in prominent right-leaning publications such as National Review and Washington Examiner. The Kevin Drum piece in Mother Jones is the only one I could find from a left-leaning perspective. And in any event, this "overrepresentation" is a content dispute, not a notability one.
Regarding WP:SUSTAINED, this Commentary article discussing the phenomenon is from 2015, which is indicative of sustained attention. Astaire (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article reads more like a defense of the term. It needs more content about its usage, its history, generally the things that would make it notable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    •Comment I believe this article needs more reliable sources to prove notability if it wants to avoid deletion. Most of the sources were previously opinion pieces from random news websites, and an opinion cannot be considered factual sources. In fact, at one point, there was only a single source that was not an opinion. If actual valid sources could be found, I would not mind the article staying, but not in it’s current state where sources are dubious at best and the term hasn’t really been proven to be an actual notable thing outside of a couple rare “here and there” uses. For now I must support Aquillion’s AFD request, but it appears people are actively trying to edit the article to make it better and should be given more time first. Tritario (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the editor who added a "This article has been mentioned by a media organization" template. As I said on the article's talk page: "Since the creation of the article by Astaire some of the cites have been deleted, but the sources actually exist and I believe their existence contributes to notability. Of course cited articles are opinion pieces since it's an article about opinions so I don't see what policy or guideline that objection is based on." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this make a better entry to Wikitionary? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno, I don't use Wiktionary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how it can misrepresent publications overall when the authors are all individually named. Potential alternate notable opinions include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. On the surface it is a bit long for an article based on 3 sources, but reading through it doesn't stretch them too far. Editors should continue to be conscious that this is a relatively thin article and should allow any new sources that appear to substantially impact our treatment of its subject. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea is that the Wikieditor shoudn't be the one to string it all together. There should be at least one article, preferably more, that mentions these people collectively and says "Yes, that's the same thing." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:If a major paper like The Journal uses this term as a headline, there is little doubt that this is notable and that a Wikipedia page has merit. Quote Veteran (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks[edit]

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
view • edit • discuss • history • watch
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism&oldid=1232784225"