Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Defining "Fundamentalist Christianity" as "militant"

There's a discussion occurring on Talk:Fundamentalist_Christianity concerning the use of "militant" to define "Fundamentalist Christianity". Feel free to participate. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 21:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like things have been moved around a lot lately, so that link no longer works. Drrll (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Importance rankings: Sean Hannity and other talk show hosts

There's a spirited debate at Talk:Sean Hannity#importance ranking for conservatism on the question of how to rank the importance of Sean Hannity to this project. The article is currently rated "high" on the assessment scale Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Assessment#Importance_scale. What is the correct rating for that and similar articles?   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Hannity and most other talk show hosts should be rated "high" on the assessment scale. Rush Limbaugh probably should be, though. He played a critical role in the start of popular conservative media in the US and was welcomed into the conservative movement by conservative stalwarts Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley, Jr. Drrll (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see [1]. IMO nationally well known talk show hosts are Mid. I would also rate Rush as Mid. Look people: assessment is subjective, this isn't a scientific undertaking. If you think a rating needs modification be bold. If you get reverted by multiple editors and your talk page fills up with warnings it's time to let it go. – Lionel (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't further discussion continue there? μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Common logos or official logos for political parties?

There is a discussion at Talk:Republican Party (United States)#The logo as to whether we should use the official Republican Party logo (File:GOP Logo1.svg), or the more common one (File:Republicanlogo.svg) in infoboxes. I favor the latter because of (1) virtually all reliable sources use it, and (2) Wikipedia's preference for WP:COMMONNAMEs over WP:OFFICIALNAMEs, in the interest of recognizability, which I see no reason would not extend to logos. See also the discussion at Talk:Democratic Party (United States)#Logo. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the traditional elephant logo should be used on the Republican article. I posted the following as a reply to the discussion at Talk:Republican Party (United States): "The 'red logo' that is currently featured in the infobox appears to be just a GOP website item and not a change of the party's actual logo. If the logo really had been changed to the red one, isn't it conceivable that there would have been some news coverage about the new party symbol? The NHL rebranded its logo in 2005 and that was covered. Simply, no source exists that the Republican Party's official symbol is anything other than the elephant design that has been synonymous with the GOP for ages. I support using the elephant in the infobox -- the real 'official logo.'" --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. The case for keeping the old Republican Party logo is stronger than for the Democratic Party because, as you pointed out, there is no evidence that is their official logo anyway. Unfortunately there is an editor that keeps reverting to the GOP.com logo despite a 3–1 (now 4–1) consensus on the talk page. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thermidorian Reaction‎

I added the Thermidorian Reaction‎ to the scope of Wikiproject conservative. It involves conservatives in a major historical event, a reaction against the revolutionares during the French Revolution. LittleJerry (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservatives played no role in the events. They would not came back to power until 1814. TFD (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

3,000th article tagged!

And the 3,000th article tagged for WikiProject Conservatism is... (drum roll) Peter Oborne. In keeping with the international scope of the project Oborne is a British journalist and political commentator. A Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph columnist and author of The Rise of Political Lying and The Triumph of the Political Class, he is particularly known for acerbic commentary on the hypocrisy and apparent mendacity of contemporary politicians. He is now generally regarded as one of the foremost conservative commentators in the country. This article is rated Start class so feel free to improve it. This is an achievement we can all be proud of. Keep up the good work! (Note: bot generated stats will take a while to update.) – Lionel (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


Good article review of Tim Pawlenty

I have done a good article review of Governor Tim Pawlenty and am informing wikiprojects associated with the article so that improvements can be made to the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Republican Party (United States)

Discussion ongoing here regarding whether the party is "center-right" or "right-wing." This is a Top importance article for the project. – Lionel (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Southern Adventist University

I have nominated this article for Good Article. It initially came to my attention when I saw it on the really really cool Recent Changes scrollbox. Thus the GA nom is the direct result of this Wikiproject, reinforcing the value of the project for article improvement and promotion. – Lionel (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Importance rating for Tea Party movement

There's a controversy over the appropriate importance rating for Tea Party movement, "high" versus "mid". I think "mid" is more appropriate because it's a short-lived, purely-American movement. It's not international, and it's only existed for perhaps four years. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/Assessment#Importance for the standards.   Will Beback  talk  10:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Mid does it. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
For now, mid. If it extends it's influence to the 2012 elections and beyond, a high may be warranted, but it is not warranted right now. Toa Nidhiki05 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob Bishop

Snyderut1847 recently made an edit to Rob Bishop which I feel that it is biased towards very recent events (this year) compared to his 8 years in office. I also think it takes up too much of the article, with all the refs in article coming from that one section. Having already been involved, I think that it would be best for an outsider to look at it. Regards, Spalds (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Within an article, issues should be given weight according to their prominence in secondary sources. See WP:WEIGHT. It often happens that people toil away in obscurity for years and then something they do gets more attention, for whatever reason. I suggest starting a talk page thread about the matter.   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Rob Bishop#Policy.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Phenomenal new department added!

I just launched the Conservatism Incubator, shortcut WP:RIGHT/I. It is a workspace designed specifically for us for collaboratively working on new articles and deleted articles not ready for mainspace. There are currently 3 articles listed, all conservative African-American BLPs. Hmmm. I wonder... does this qualify as an affirmative action program? lol – Lionel (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Raymond A. Watson

Looks like prejudice against rural areas: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raymond_A._Watson. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. It's anti-unnotable-person bias. Also, Watson's a conservative and the main point of the article (I think) is to hang a bunch of "controversies" on him. There is a liberal bias in the Wikipedia probably, and that's a problem, but don't go overboard. Herostratus (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm a liberal and defending the inclusion of an article on Watson, whose policies I don't like, and you're a conservative and knocking small towns like East Jesus, Montana. Life on Wikipedia can get complicated. We need a beer summit. Down the hatch, buddy, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, again. What happened to the above article, which was moved to the Incubator but is not listed as being there? I had to do some searching to retrieve it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Odd. Looks like a bug in the HTML code. I'll debug it. – Lionel (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter

Who wants to publish the newsletter?– Lionel (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of conservatism may be deleted

Timeline of conservatism has been nominated for deletion. You can make your voice heard here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of conservatism. – Lionel (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You have not yet explained how we present disputed history. The example given was the American Revolution. Was the conflict between

  • a liberal empire and liberal colonists
  • a conservative empire and conservative colonists
  • a conservative empire and both conservative and liberal colonists
  • a liberal empire and conservative colonists
  • a liberal empire and both liberal and conservative colonists
  • a liberal-conservative empire and liberal colonists
  • a liberal-conservative empire and conservative colonists
  • a liberal-conservative empire and both liberal and conservative colonists

TFD (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What I think doesn't matter. What matters is whether a reliable source considers an event related to conservatism.– Lionel (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Reliable sources disagree as explained above. How do you report this? TFD (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

style guide

I think the style guide as currently presented was properly explained. The style for articles on people and other topics in this area is in no way different from the style for people and things of the same nature elsewhere. We do not write differently according to the political views of the subject of an article. However, I see nothing much wrong with it, except a few omissions, which I have remedied, and I suggest we add some clarifying language. I'll make a try at it. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for help on AUL article

To whoever may find this: I work for Americans United for Life (AUL), an organization that is the subject of a Wikipedia article within the scope of this WikiProject. The article isn't very good and never has been, so I reached out to a friend who is a Wikipedia editor and received their assistance in researching and writing a new Wikipedia article about AUL. You can see the draft here: User:ProLifeDC/AUL replacement draft. As I've explained further on the AUL discussion page, the article has been written carefully to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Because of my involvement with AUL I am reluctant to move it myself, so I'd appreciate it if another editor could review the article, make any changes if necessary, and move it into the main space. Thanks for your consideration,ProLifeDC (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look at it this evening and make the edits. Soonersfan168 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
As a general comment, you should probably get input from a slightly more diverse group of editors before moving it. There's no indication of other editors' input into the draft, and by advertising it solely to WikiProject Conservatism, you risk receiving a relatively narrow and potentially partisan range of feedback. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion is largely defunct, but you may want to seek out and invite editors who have been active on topics related to the abortion debate to review the draft. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 17:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The difficulty with doing things this way is that you lose the revision history which shows who has copyright in various parts of the article. That is OK, if you completely wrote the new version from scratch because then you are the only author. But if you copied in all or part of the old article as a starting point, then you are violating policy. See CC-BY-SA 3.0 license which requires that you identify all contributors to the article. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
ProLifeDC thanks for stopping by! I'd also be happy to look over your draft to make sure it passes NPOV. JR's point is well taken. The edit history must be preserved, so WP:MOVE is problematic. I believe a solution would be to cut-and-paste your draft over the target article. – Lionel (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. To be clear, the draft I prepared is mostly new, but it does preserve and modify some worthwhile text and citations from the current version. And it was not my intent that the new version wipe out the previous history of the article, simply to copy mine over and paste it as mentioned. If one of the editors here is still able to review it, that's great. And MastCell, I'm open to a wider discussion, but I did notice as you point out that WikiProject Abortion is no longer active. Suggestions are welcome. Thanks, ProLifeDC (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a copy/paste is best. The replacement draft has some very curious turns of phrase regarding the fetus: "protections from criminal violence" and "unlawful criminal violence". This kind of wording is not in common parlance—people just say "abortion". This wording should only be presented as a direct quote of the model legislation and not in Wikipedia's editorial voice. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, the terms you quote aren't meant to refer to abortion, but to assaults on a pregnant woman that may lead to injury or death for the unborn child. The phrase "criminal violence" is certainly commonplace in that context, and that's all it means. Hope that clears it up. Thanks, ProLifeDC (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem remains. Here's one of the problem sentences: "It also works to create and support legal protections for unborn children, including protections from criminal violence, for which it has drafted model legislation." Where is the mention of pregnant women in that sentence? It is wholly absent. Also, two arguments are put forward using blogs, to reply to Mother Jones. I think that only secondary sources should be used to counter a secondary source. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
No objections on the article talk page. Bink raises valid concerns: that should be easily resolved via normal deliberative process on talk page. Taken as a whole the draft is an improvement. I was bold and cut & pasted the draft. Further discussion regarding this article should continue at the talk page. Another satisfied customer. Should we get a tip jar? – Lionel (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet, I don't think the introduction is inaccurate, but maybe it could be clarified better. Instead of saying "including protection from criminal violence" it should say "including protection of pregnant women from criminal violence".
And regarding the Mother Jones article and sources used to respond, all of that has been preserved from the current article, so it could be dealt with later. The only thing I would add to this is that one of the "blogs" is from AUL.org, which is a reliable source for the purpose of describing AUL's opinion, whether it's in a blog subdirectory or not. Since Lionelt has already moved it over, we can just have this discussion on the Talk for the page. Thanks, ProLifeDC (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The article looks good. I would however question using the term "criminal violence" which appears to be jargon used by the group and may be considered non-neutral and confusing to a wider audience. The expression from "at all stages of life" is confusing. It makes me think of Christian socialists who oppose abortion and the death penalty. TFD (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What are your premises?

As Ayn Rand used to say, "Check your premises!". So to begin with, what are the premises of Conservatism as you understand them? JRSpriggs (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no good answer to this question. As far as I can tell, the main premise of this project is the promotion of US-centric right-wing political aims, specified at social conservatism in the United States. Several people have tried to expand the coverage to better suit the much larger field of conservatism, but the driving force behind this project remains firmly Amero-centric and activist. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
First off, JRSpriggs, we have no premise - our goal is to improve coverage of articles related to conservatism.
Second, Binksternet, this project has been under fire from editors like yourself since its creation. Unless you have proof this WikiProject is editing with bias and is activist, please stop the attacks. We welcome anyone of any belief to join. Toa Nidhiki05 15:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
However, Lionelt primarily invites new users who are proven neo-cons or Tea Party-ers or pro-lifers, stacking the project against classic British Conservatism, or any other kind of conservatism. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Lionel can invite whoever he wants. I can invite whoever I want. Any member can invite whoever he wants. Is there a problem with that that merits this WP getting treated differently than another? If someone has shown interest in articles on this project, they'll get invited. Is it wrong for someone to invite a U2 fan to Wikipedia:WikiProject U2? Toa Nidhiki05 17:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Alan Ware writes, "Conservatism as a philosophy is generally seen as a defense of the status quo from major changes in political, economic, or social institutions in society.... They were opposed to change--largely to protect their own economic and political interests, but also partly out of a sense of paternalistic responsibility for the politically powerless who would be harmed by the absence of restraints on economic markets...[i.e., protect them from free market capitalism]"[2] Russell Kirk and Peter Viereck believed that the federalists and antebellum southerners were conservatives. Clinton Rossiter and Patrick Allitt believed that conservatism continued and was represented by such presidents as Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. TFD (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
"Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism—the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known—as conservative." Big problems with scope here, rooted in uncorrectable historical and cultural differences in how we define "conservatism". Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The premise of this project is a group of editors who edit conservatism-related articles. This is not a project tasked with defining conservatism. The scope is ancillary. We're here to work with editors who have similar interests. I'm perfectly OK with a living, breathing scope that changes depending on the circumstances, you know, like the US Constitution <g>. Regarding the coverage, for my part, I have worked tirelessly to locate non-US articles, and have personally tagged hundreds. I have also added dozens of non-US conservatism categories. – Lionel (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason I asked is that, like Binksternet, I see a tension between two strains of conservatism in America. They share one belief:

  • Traditional social values have been tested by time and are thus superior to 'progressive' fads which are often just excuses to give into the temptation to seek short-term gratification at the expense of future well-being.

But they differ on the proper response:

  • The State, Church, or other authorities should enforce traditional values; countering short-term gratification with short-term penalties to keep people on the path to their future good.
  • The authorities should leave people alone because it is more important for people to internalize self-control by learning the hard way. Also the authorities lack the wisdom and integrity to correctly identify the proper values; that is, they are often captured by the fads in which case they would be misleading people.

So which version of conservatism are we talking about here? Or is there a third version of which I am not aware? JRSpriggs (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This project is for all types - social conservatism, neoconservatism, liberal conservatism, fiscal conservatism, libertarian conservatism, euroskepticism, etc. Toa Nidhiki05 12:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Neo-liberalism and libertarianism are versions of liberalism, not conservatism. Look at the influences - Rand, Hayek, and Friedman, neo-classical economics, Locke and Adam Smith. American social conservatism is also a branch of liberalism. The influence is English Puritanism and protestant sectarianism. None of this has anything to do with conservatism. We should change this project's name to liberalism. TFD (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
There already is a WikiProject:Liberalism. Those are all related to conservatism as well. Toa Nidhiki05 17:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
No there is not, it re-directs to WikiProject Political culture. In the 1930s, Roosevelt called his supporters "liberals" and his opponents "conservatives". They objected, saying they were "true liberals", but 20 years later they decided to adopt the term, over the objections of Hayek and others. (See Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative".[3] Roosevelt could just as easily have called his supporters conservatives and his opponents liberals. The terminology has nothing to do with how the words are normally understood. TFD (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "We should change this project's name?" You aren't even a member. And it is the membership that decides what they will call themselves and what articles interest them. Have you ever stopped to think that the members want to include American conservatism here, in this project, and don't care if some academic calls it liberalism, liberal conservatism or whatever-ism.– Lionel (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
You are speaking for members who have not spoken about this issue. How do you know what the members want? Unless you think that in selecting specific editors to invite to the project, you are collecting a chorus of yes-men who back you up at every turn. You didn't invite me, but I joined. As a member, I think the project's name should be changed to Post-Reagan Conservatism or something of that nature. The problem with naming the project is the same as naming the scope... there is no good focus. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
A conservative would never write "it is the membership that decides" and that he does not "care if some academic calls it liberalism...." The conservative approach is to defer to authority and ignore what the unwashed masses happen to think. It is a great tragedy that there was no conservative tradition in the U.S., which would have been a moderating influence on political debate. TFD (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for the general discussion of conservatism, guys. If you are just here to attack members or try to push an agenda, please go away - we don't need divisive, unconstructive editors that are hell-bent on destroying this WP. Toa Nidhiki05 11:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
We are discussing the scope of the project. Before the emergence of socialism, the main political division was between liberals who supported limited government and free markets and conservatives who wanted to preserve medieval institutions. This project defines both as conservative. So either we should change the name of the project or limit its scope or both. TFD (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not WikiProject:Conservatism in the 1700s - this is WikiProject:Conservatism. Stop the bantering and either try and help the project or leave. Toa Nidhiki05 20:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that conservatism in the 1700s and before should be excluded in the scope of the project? Could you please provide a cut-off date. TFD (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
No. No. – Lionel (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
So do we present the royalists as the conservatives, or people such as John Locke and Adam Smith who supported free markets and limited government? TFD (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
TFD, what we cover here is fairly clear. Get off of this page - you are not editing in good faith and are doing nothing to aid this WikiProject. If you are so morally opposed to this project, just pretend it doesn't exist. Toa Nidhiki05 13:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith. Defining the scope of the project helps it.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
What we cover here is not clear. You and Lionelt have an interest in modern American right-wing populism, but have not explained what else belongs in the article. TFD (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The scope is clearly defined on the Project's main page. TFD's bantering is apparently to try and narrow our scope significantly - rather than attempt to improve or aid this project, he evidently wants to try and harm it. I'm not assuming bad faith, per WP:DUCK.
Also, please don't try to speak for me or Lionelt, or accuse me (or any other editor) of editing with a bias, TFD - if you don't want to help improve the 3,000+ articles that we are trying to improve, please go away. Toa Nidhiki05 21:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you accusing TFD of bias while rejecting the accusation of bias on your own part? That kind of discourse really isn't helpful. Rather than talking about each other I'd encourage folks to stick to the topic, which is the scope of the project.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone who isn't a member of this Project really has no business trying to redefine its goals. Toa Nidhiki05 22:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
We're all members of the Wikipedia community. Wikiproject members have no special status and do not own the projects in which they participate. I am active with many projects but I rarely bother signing in as a member because it has little meaning. Again, let's avoid discussing other editors and just stick to the topic.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a few issues where the desire of a wikiproject's membership takes precedence over the larger community. One for instance is if an article should be tagged by the project, another is the scope of the project: "A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project." – Lionel (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Would mind explaining what the scope is? TFD (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We've explained here and it is explained on the main page. This bantering has no use at this point, TFD. You are not a member, and have no right to change our scope. Toa Nidhiki05 00:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
What is the scope? TFD (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you read, TFD? Perhaps you should open up the FAQ section at the top of the page, because it is up there. Toa Nidhiki05 01:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The FAQ says, "we are dedicated to improving articles related to conservatism". What do you mean by conservatism? Incidentally, it would be a reasonable assumption that anyone contributing to this talk page had the ability to read, but thank you for asking. TFD (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, this "you-are-not-a-member" stuff is incredibly silly. All it takes to be a member is to profess an interest in "conservatism" and to add one's name to the members list. There are precedents for WikiProjects removing (or, more often) ignoring disruptive individual members, but in this case there seems to be a knee-jerk, blanket resistance to anyone who asks questions about the project's scope or aims. That doesn't bode well for the project's future, nor reflect well on its current membership. MastCell Talk 06:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should look at the 'conservatism' page, TFD. Toa Nidhiki05 12:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Malleus? MastCell Talk 16:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
My mistake, accidently used the name of an editor I had been in dispute with outside of here. :) Toa Nidhiki05 17:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Which page is that? TFD (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Biographies

I created biographies of two interesting but neglected pioneers of modern American conservatism, Willi Schlamm and Kenneth Goff. Unfortunately, there is very little about them, although their names come up often in books about conservatism. I used all the sources I could find and would appreciate if anyone else has sources available so that we could expand these articles. I also created an article about Gilbert Cooper, who was a conservative politician in Bermuda but retired before the party system was established. Unfortunately I could find very few reliable sources for him either. He was for example a member of the legislative council, hence he is called "The Honourable" in the London Gazette, but I cannot find a source for that. TFD (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice.– Lionel (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Should be more diverse

I noticed that the past few selected articles have been related to modern American politics as with most of the past "Didn't you knows". With all due respect, I think someone who is runnning this portal should be more knowledgeable on the history of conservatism around the world. After all, the ideology did not begin in America. 96.35.124.13 (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Also, the project's first newsletter repeatedly uses the phrase "Let's roll", made ideal for expressions of American patriotism celebrating the passenger rebellion on United Airlines Flight 93. The phrase itself is neither conservative nor liberal, just gung-ho and feisty, but it marks the newsletter writer and project founder as having a pro-America POV limitation. Binksternet (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Let's pick a better conservative expression. I suggest, "Ut incepit Fidelis sic permanet". TFD (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
That's good. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

96.35 thanks for stopping by! Three months ago I created a to-do list with the main objective to globalize the portal, and then I put it on the talk page for all to see. Globalizing the portal is a priority for me. Bink's accusation is false, deceptive and misleading. It would be great to have more editors working on the portal. It is well documented, inclusion critera are well defined and plenty of templates make adding content easy. Here is the to-do:

*Add more articles such as Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke

Bink, your repeated demeaning characterizations of me and frequent negative and derogatory insinuations are personal attacks for which you have been previously warned. I have better things to do than fill up a noticeboard with diffs of your attacks. Will this be necessary?– Lionel (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please let us use the English version, "as she began loyal, so she persists", so other people do not have to look up the translation from Latin as I did. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet's lies and falsehoods notwithstanding, I am a proponent of international conservatism. So much so that I placed the blug flag of international conservatism on the project banner which means that that blue flag is now flying proudly on all 4000 or so articles, even American articles, where the color of conservatism is red. Not only that, but I placed a GIGANTIC blue flag representing international conservatism on the main nav box {{Conservatism}}. This huge flag is prominently displayed on every top and many high importance articles, including the American articles. This placement raises international conservatism to the highest possible profile.

With respect to TFD's slogan, I like it. In fact I think we should use it to encircle the international blue flag and thus appear on all 4000 articles. I also think the Latin should be retained as the English translation might give the impression that this project defers to Americans: which everyone knows and all available evidence shows that it doesn't. See a prototype with a solid line instead of the text of the slogan at right... – Lionel (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't see any lies or falsehoods of mine here, only the observation that you used the phrase "Let's roll" in the first newsletter, the story explaining that you also used the phrase to open this WikiProject. It is my observation that this phrase has become a signal of pro-American patriotism following the 9-11 attacks. I observed that you appear to be favoring pro-American conservative subjects, which is probably my perception because I don't keep track of your editing history to see what you are doing in the international field. Primarily, I see what you do when it intersects with topics I'm interested in which are mainly American ones. Even if I am failing to see how much internationalism you have been trying to inject into the Project, you must acknowledge that a non-American would not likely seek a dual-Reagan portal configuration for Conservatism.
By the way, the Portal is supposed to lead the reader to articles while the Project is supposed to help organize interested editors. The two should not be tied together. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Your point about the dual portal is well taken. However the sheer volume of Featured and GA content regarding Reagan makes him an excellent candidate for a portal of his own, and until then IMO a dual portal is a logical intermediate step. The total number of Reagan articles dwarfs the next closest topic. My goal in designing the portal was to only present the very best quality that we have to offer, regardless of nationality. Until more FAs and GAs are promoted that means the portal will be skewed toward Reagan.

Wikiprojects are a failing proposition. Portals for all intents and purposes have already failed. These are recurring topics at WProj Council and WProj Portals. It is true that projects and portals are not connected, but if these entities are to survive we need to think outside of the box. There was a discussion at WP Council about how the Germans integrate projects and portals. I figured I'd try it: attempt to generate some synergy.

I am very interested in any idea which will increase membership, increase FAs and GAs, and increase portal utilization. That's what this talkpage is for. It's time to stop talking about bullshit and start talking about IMPROVING ARTICLES. – Lionel (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that blue is much better for conservatism than red. Historically red is associated with the bloody-minded leftists, especially the communists and pirates who kill their prisoners. In US military war games, red was used to represent hostile (presumably Soviet) forces while blue represented allied forces.
The reversal of red and blue is quite recent, due to a TV network switching them in its national telecast of a recent presidential election (perhaps in 2000?). Perhaps they were trying to suggest that the Democrats were the loyalist party and the Republicans were the insurgents. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that's exactly the subliminal message those pinkos at NBC News were trying to indoctrinate us with. MastCell Talk 05:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The news networks regularly switched colors until the terms "blue state" and "red state" became part of the language in 2000. Unlike other countries, major U.S. parties never had specific colors. Blue, yellow and red are the traditional colors for conservatism, liberalism and socialism, and we use red and yellow flags for socialist and liberal articles. JRSpriggs, the popular translation is "loyal she began, loyal she remains". TFD (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether conservatism (fusionism) is an anticoncept?

Please see the description of "anticoncept". An anticoncept is a mishmash of mutually contradictory ideas which has the effect of obscuring the truth, that is, it is misleading when mistaken for an authentic concept. For example, "fuzzy logic" is an anticoncept.
Lionelt (talk · contribs) is the founder and main driving force behind this project. He interprets conservatism in accordance with his belief in fusionism (please correct me, if I am wrong about this, Lionel), that is, Conservatism=+Authoritarianism+Libertarianism−Socialism. However, authoritarianism "my country [its rulers] right or wrong" and libertarianism (respect for natural rights) are necessarily opposed to one another. Now, a project about fusionism which clearly identified it as such would be OK, but a project which implicitly assumes the truth of fusionism and on that basis re-interprets the history of 'conservatism' would be misleading to the casual reader.
I think that this is that of which Binksternet and some others have been vaguely aware. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

[Not to distract from your main point, but I think you've mis-defined authoritarianism, which see. "My country [its rulers] right or wrong" is more of like an extreme form of patriotism called "Chauvinism". That doesn't change your point.]   Will Beback  talk  08:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed sub-project: Modern U.S. Conservatism

This project has grown quite large. Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism, it may make sense to split this project into some sub-projects or task forces. I propose that Modern U.S. Conservatism would be a good topic for a sub-project because it would cover a large, relatively distinct topic set of articles. That would also have the benefit of making it easier to handle non-American Conservative movements, many of which are quite different. A similar sub-project for U.K. Conservatism may also be called for. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  08:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Identify the best structure.   Will Beback  talk  08:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I hope that I may step in here with a comment about that. If the idea is based upon the MfD discussion, then I think it would actually be a bad idea. If there are concerns about editors engaging in POV pushing about modern US conservatism, then establishing a narrow project to work only on that would exacerbate the presumed problem. On the other hand, it is a good thing to ask editors to work in a balanced manner on the broader topic of conservatism generally. Those that do so, good for them! Those that do not, the pattern will be all the more observable. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tryptofish in that a more tightly focused modern American scope will likely result in a greater degree of political advocacy. If the Project continues, it should be about improving a broad swath of conservatism articles. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Will Beback. What may be called a conservative in the United States may be called a "liberal" in Europe, while conservatism in Europe is separate from liberalism. We are making good progress in the article, Timeline of modern American conservatism, with additional editors willing to contribute and no tension, while when it was called "Timeline of conservatism" there was tension about the scope of the article and the meaning of conservatism. I find it confusing that we have a project that attempts to include both the loyalists in the American revolution, who founded Canada's conservative parties, with the Tea Party activists, one of the more radical groups of the U.S. revolution, who are the inspiration for the modern Tea Party movement. Also, almost everthing that comes up in the project relates to U.S. conservatism. TFD (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
You're right about that. Any solution which keeps advocacy out of the encyclopedia is the solution I will back. Our problem is that we can only guess. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
It is, of course, up to the project, but I think this approach will only keep advocacy out of those pages that deal with conservatism outside of modern US conservatism – where there really hasn't been much advocacy to begin with. It won't help to keep advocacy out of the encyclopedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

US constitution

Making the United States Constitution article a part of this project is going too far. Conservatism has no specific claim to and there are clearly POV reasons for tagging it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Constitution is of importance to this project. To argue it doesn't is rather bizarre, since it clearly is of significance to the Conservative movement and conservatism in general, especially in the United States. Toa Nidhiki05 20:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Simply having the page as part of the project is not a problem. Is there any reason to believe that this project is editing that page in a manner that is contrary to policy? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
So should the Bible be tagged too? LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There were some comments about over-tagging at the MFD. But in general, wikiprojects cast wide nets. It'd be appropriate to tag the Constitution article for many projects, including Wikiproject Liberalism.   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@Little Jerry - No, because it is a religious, not political, document. Toa Nidhiki05 00:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. constitution is a liberal document and has no place in a project about conservatism. TFD (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
An article only has to be related to conservatism. E.g. if a liberal document is the object of conservative activism, then it is a candidate for inclusion. From U.S. Constitution:

These include the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Balanced Budget Amendment, and the Flag Desecration Amendment. All three proposals are supported primarily by conservatives...

This project has a wide net. Inclusion of articles will be handled on a case by case basis on the talk page.– Lionel (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
You mean like this thread on this talk page.   Will Beback  talk  07:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Your basic premise that we are "claiming" articles and that banners are POV is erroneous. It was erroneous 2 months ago when you embarked upon a mass removal adventure, and it is still erroneous today. Please acquaint yourself with the FAQ at the top of the page, it was written specifically with you in mind: "the banner does not imply that the subject has a conservative or right-wing ideology, has no relevance to neutral POV, nor that WikiProject Conservatism owns the article." – Lionel (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Definition of the scope of this project/discussion

A number of people at the Mfd have noted the problem of the lack of a definition of this project. Would someone like to propose one to be included on the main project page? Also I think the connection with liberalism needs to be explained. Does conservatism include liberalism — in relation to this project? Thank you and all the best. --Kleinzach 00:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Articles on topics like Liberal Party of Australia and Liberal Movement (Australia) have been tagged for inclusion.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Liberal conservatism falls under conservatism as well as liberalism, as it is a fusion ideology. It is the predominant form of conservatism in the rest of the world (aside from the US, which has 'American conservatism'). Explain why these center-right parties shouldn't be included under this project's scope. Toa Nidhiki05 00:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Explain the scope of this project. Then we can explain how any particular article fits into it.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
@Klein--The few editors who commented about a "problem" are certainly entitled to their opinion. However the consensus at MfD, so far, is that the scope is not a problem. That said, I proposed at MfD that the scope be amended to add "inclusive of Burkean and American conservatism." If my proposal is adopted or not is for the members to decide per wikiproject guidelines. However due to the lack of any substantial member involvement regarding the scope I can only conclude that the majority of the members are fine with the scope (a sentiment shared at MfD) and it is only Binksternet and TFD manipulating this issue to delete the group.

Question: how is this so-called "problem" about the scope personally affecting your enjoyment of editing Wikipedia? Because it certainly isn't harming the encyclopedia. – Lionel (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see my response below. --Kleinzach 00:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
@Will: LPA is "Conservative liberalism, Liberal conservatism, New Right, Centre-right." The article states: "The Liberal Party has more recently been a conservative party." From what I gather most of the Lib Movement article is about "rural conservatives" and a "socially conservative" party called LCL which influenced the movement. This project casts a wide net and I don't see why these articles should be excluded, nor do I particularly care if they're excluded. If a nonmember really has the time and thinks it's critical to the future of Wikipedia to come here and argue about banners on talk pages, they can knock themselves out.– Lionel (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Have we answered Kleinzach's questions?   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll give it a shot: No need to propose a scope, we already have one. Connection with liberalism does not have to be explained per "The statement of scope need not be elaborate or detailed", and IMO the Liberalism article is not within the scope.– Lionel (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)'
I'll go further and not our scope is adequately explained in Answer 5 on the FAQ at the top of the page - 'we are dedicated to improving articles related to conservatism, not limited to any particular form or national variety of conservatism'. This scope is broad, but other WikiProjects have many more pages, including WikiProject Socialism, which has over 4,000 articles with only 21 members and counts articles such as Tear down this wall!, Cold War, Inner German Border, Korean Air Lines Flight 007, and John Maynard Keynes under its scope. Toa Nidhiki05 01:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Who wrote the FAQ?   Will Beback  talk  01:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Does it really matter to you? Is this WikiProject really ruining Wikipedia for you? Toa Nidhiki05 01:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Just sayin'.   Will Beback  talk  03:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
WPSocialism's scope is completely confusing to me. I don't know where socialism ends and communism begins. It obviously should be deleted. Binksternet--can you take care of this? As I recall you do know your way to MfD, right mate? And while we're at it let's get rid of their portal too. It has way too much communist stuff on it. Better to delete it than improve it. That's a job for you, TFD, I think. You game, pal? But first we should troll their talk page for 8 months. – Lionel (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I almost forgot: Let's roll comrades!!!!! LOL!!!!! – Lionel (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. This page is for discussing this wikiproject. I'm sure the socialism project has a talk page of its own.   Will Beback  talk  03:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The Liberal Party of Australia is not a liberal conservative party, it is a conservative liberal party. In other words it is a liberal party that is closer to traditional liberalism than say the Liberal Party of the United Kingdom is. A prime example of a liberal conservative party is the Tory party of the U.K., which long ago came to accept liberalism, whether of the classical or reformist variety. The essence of conservatism however remains the preservation of medieval institutions, class, monarchy, established church, deference to authority. It has nothing to do with peasants and pitchforks. And why would be exclude authoritarian conservatism? TFD (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
After reading the responses above (for which many thanks), it's obvious that we still have a definition problem. The project merely refers to 'conservatism', while the FAQ, as referred to above, says "As stated on the main page of this project, we are dedicated to improving articles related to conservatism, not limited to any particular form or national variety of conservatism." That doesn't amount to much.
It doesn't matter what definition you choose, so long as it is a clear one. If you are going to concentrate on international centre-right politics, that's fine, though it would probably be wise to change the project name because few centre-right parties use the description 'Conservative' (the notable exception being in England, though even the leader of that party describes himself as a liberal with a small 'L') whereas many others identify with other labels such 'Liberal', 'Christian', 'Democratic' etc. — which makes it difficult to decide who is in and who is out. On the other hand, if you are going to focus on international right wing politics, including both the liberal centre-right and the illiberal far right, that also should be clear.
Why does this matter? My experience (over the past six years) has been that badly-defined projects invariably fail. Arguments over scope and priorities mitigate against the creation and development of articles. They also drive away 'bona fide' editors. Wikipedia for some time has been in decline (as shown by editing stats) and a prime reason for this is the concentration on Wikipedia-space, rather than encyclopedia, of exactly the kind we can see starting here.
Finally a quiet tap on the shoulder of Lionel: It's better not to take every comment on this issue personally. Hectoring is not the Wikipedia way of influencing outcomes. We have a well-written page that explains why assuming good faith is the way to resolve differences. Please have a look at it. --Kleinzach 01:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your comments. TFD (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My user page MfDed

My user page has been sent to MfD. If you have an opinion on this, you may express it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JRSpriggs. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Result was speedy keep. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Mfd closure/From the Founder

I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to the Community for their support of this amazing and special group of editors. The attempt to delete the project has been soundly and decisively defeated. The consensus is that the members have accorded themselves with honor and integrity according to Wikipedia policies. The consensus is that charges of activism, advocacy, and vote-stacking are baseless and without merit. The future of this project is secure. It has been said that whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. This assault on the project will indeed strengthen us. I urge every member to rededicate themselves to collaboratively working together to improve conservatism-related articles. On this momentous occasion, allow me to propose a toast:

Congratulations upon surviving the proposed deletion. However, the consensus was simple: the project should not be deleted. There was no additional consensus "that charges of activism, advocacy, and vote-stacking are baseless and without merit." Instead, consensus is that any observed activism, advocacy and vote-stacking should be dealt with on an individual basis. Do not take the result of the MfD as a remit for activism.
Collaboration on improving articles is indeed the purpose of the project. Let's not deviate from that. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the MFd was closed as follows: "The result of the discussion was keep (and no consensus with regard to the issue of renaming this WikiProject)." The Mfd was a useful discussion, for which we should thank Binksternet, however the main issue remains unresolved. Can we effectively address it here? Given enough goodwill from all concerned, it should be possible. --Kleinzach 00:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not unresolved - WikiProject:Conservatism exists, deal with it. If you don't like it, pretend it doesn't exist. Toa Nidhiki05 01:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The number-one concern about this project is that it fosters an us-vs.-them, battleground mentality. The MfD was silent on that question, because MfD isn't the proper venue to address the misuse of Wikipedia as an ideological battleground. I think the best approach would have been to accept the constructive suggestions received. The worst response would be... well, pretty much this one, in which you explicitly conceptualize Wikipedia as a battleground and the MfD as an "assault" which you've repelled. MastCell Talk 02:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Mast, the MfD failed for a reason - nobody really cares, aside from a few editors such as yourself, that this project exists. Trying to control how we operate, given the baseless accusations that have been thrown against this project, is really uncalled for. The scope of a WikiProject is the concern of its members, not Wikipedia. There are many projects with even broader scopes (ie. Wikipedia: WikiProject Socialism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life) This project has done nothing but good for Wikipedia, and there is really nothing to prove otherwise.
As for any so-called, battleground-mentality, there is a quasi-war being waged against this project, manifested in the deletion nomination. Myself, along with the other members of this project, are understandably peeved at the unwarranted hate this project is being shown. Perhaps if people would stop detracting and start helping, we wouldn't have any issues. Toa Nidhiki05 02:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many who have watched the MFD and this back and forth who decided to stay out of it. For now. To give a Lionel and the project a chance to grow, so as to not have his work diminished unless necessary. One big thing that does not help it's cause is members like you. You consistently engage, in a very hostile way, other editors who ask questions, in a manner that isn't helpful. Not only that, you also tout the scope of this project as no business of anyone's other than it's 'members'. That is a sure way of having this project under more scrutiny and perhaps breaking it up. If Lionelt can't, or won't, have a better direction of the project and make it clear to members like you that you don't own the project, then I can see this popping up again with a different outcome. Dave Dial (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Dave, please don't personally attack me. My position is backed up by policy that has been quoted time and time again (the scope of a project is up to its members, and its members alone). I'll repeat the only reason there is any battleground mentality is several users evidently don't want this project to succeed, and so have tried to defame it and/or delete it. When one is facing something like that, you have to defend as strongly as possible.

Rather than attack me personally, treat me as the problem with this project, and declare our scope as bad, perhaps you should either help this project or help something somewhere else. The only reason we have these debates is some users really, really hate this project, and have from the start. Toa Nidhiki05 13:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Heck, this project provided a home for my conservative county supervisor, Raymond A. Watson, while others in WP successfully ran a hit on him and rubbed him out like a Russian commissar, and I am not even a conservative. I'm about as liberal as you can get, but this place will always have a soft spot in my head, like a fontanelle. That Watson battle will be continued after I can rewrite the piece, once more: Some folks who don't grok rural areas, I guess, decided to ding the poor guy. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

For those of you who haven't been following along, Binksternet wrote, "The Project is undesirable..." – Lionel (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all, the MfD didn't "fail". An MfD is a discussion, and this particular discussion generated a lot of useful feedback. That's a success, from the standpoint of hopefully improving this project. I'd encourage you to view it those terms, rather than as a victory in combat. I think it's fair to say that the "scope" argument was roundly (and properly, IMO) rejected; the project can define its own scope, and a broad or poorly defined scope isn't grounds for deleting a project. MastCell Talk 03:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
OK. The MfD didn't fail. Binksternet did. He failed to eradicate us, which was his intention.– Lionel (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you're going down an unhealthy road here by personalizing this and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, but clearly nothing I say at this point is going to dissuade you, so carry on. MastCell Talk 04:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
How is a simple statement of fact a 'battle'? Binksternet nominated this project for MfD. He wanted this project eliminated, which is why he nominated it for deletion - you don't nominate something for deletion if you just want it discussed. Toa Nidhiki05 13:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I wanted the project deleted because deletion would have eliminated the need to keep an eye on the path of the project; a path too easily bent to political activism. The community spoke, and they said the project can continue, and that if individuals in the project stray from good Wikipedia practice then they must be dealt with individually. It is a mistake to take the conclusion of the MfD and say that the project can do whatever it wants to do. It is a misake to say that the MfD consensus was that there was no merit to charges of activism.
Basically, if the project attempts to change a political outcome through what is published in topical articles, the project is at that point outside of Wikipedia's five pillars. Those who try to show a political topic in any other than a factual and neutral light will need to be reined in.
I'm still a project member and I will remain so because of the continuing need for a strong objective viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Some unsolicited advice from someone who commented in favor of keeping: Members of the project would be wise to understand that one lesson of the process is that you should always edit to high standards according to Wikipedia policy, because your edits will inevitably draw scrutiny. If your editing conduct can withstand scrutiny, you may still be annoyed from time to time, but you will be able to do good work. If you fail to edit in an NPOV and transparent manner or you try to game the system, you will be called on it. And editors who find fault with the project should remember that WP:BOOMERANG exists: if you are too indiscriminate in finding fault, you will draw unwelcome scrutiny to yourselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that project members should determine the direction of the project. So although I am not (in personal political terms) a conservative, I've joined the project. --Kleinzach 00:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conservatism/Archive_2&oldid=1168274458"