Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Conservatism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism
Wikipedia:Conservatism
- The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.
The resulting WikiProject was created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism
Description[edit]
A project to collaborate on articles with conservative topics. Initially modelled on WP:WikiProject_Libertarianism. Lionel (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
Please specify whether or not you would join the project.
- Lionel (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Drrll Drrll (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Haymaker (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NYyankees51 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- William S. Saturn (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CWenger (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dezidor (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion[edit]
When I first read this I was a bit weary, but looking at all the positive contributions Wikiproject Libertarianism was able to make I think it would be worthwhile. - Haymaker (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lionelt has created the project page at WP:WikiProject Conservatism Drrll (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's this? Conservapedia from within Wikipedia? A duplicate effort. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone not AGFing (not me) might think this is organizing WP:Votestacking! DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A similar effort was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. I considered nominating this one myself, but decided against it because Wikipedia:WikiProject Liberalism exists (although is inactive). --B (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary objective of the project is to work collaboratively to promote Conservatism articles to FA. There should be more FA articles in proportion to the number of total articles in the Conservatism cat tree. With 5 editors in support, I created the project. Lionel (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics that is at least somewhat active. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government, and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States politicians. It would seem like an existing WikiProject would be suitable rather than creating a new one which, on the surface, has an apparent political bent. --B (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary objective of the project is to work collaboratively to promote Conservatism articles to FA. There should be more FA articles in proportion to the number of total articles in the Conservatism cat tree. With 5 editors in support, I created the project. Lionel (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A similar effort was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. I considered nominating this one myself, but decided against it because Wikipedia:WikiProject Liberalism exists (although is inactive). --B (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone not AGFing (not me) might think this is organizing WP:Votestacking! DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said elsewhere, I wish this project will not fly, given that it was positioned against project liberalism. In my view, it will in the end lead to even a further polarization of editors and may encourage an unfortunate WP:Battleground mentality with them. The end result may be 90% talk page discussion and 10% good content. Then both groups will end up getting backlash from the larger community and there will be no real winners. I hope to see more cooperation and less polarization of editors. History2007 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I am not very familiar with Conservapedia, I believe it has a conservative POV. Project Conservatism is based on neutral POV. Project Conservatism stands on its own merit, and not in comparison nor opposition to a non-existent Project Liberalism. There are many potentially polarizing projects on wikipedia which do just fine. E.g. Abortion, Jehova's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, conflict resolution projects such as Israel Palestine Collaboration, and let's not forget Fascism. Conservatism is an important, and neglected subject, and there is sufficient interest. We should AGF and support a group of editors who desire to improve the encyclopedia. Lionel (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @B: This project is not about politics in the United States. I will welcome collaboration on articles about European conservative thinkers and politicians, expanding article about them etc. I hope that Lionelt is serious and he will expand Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism and will create Portal. --Dezidor (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very few people in Europe self-identify as "conservative" or "right-wing", terms that have gone into disuse. And the meaning of the term "conservative" is different, and European conservatives might consider American conservatives to be liberals. TFD (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very few people in Europe self-identify as "right-wing". Are you wrong. See self-identifikation of Czech Republic citizens: levice = left-wing, pravice = right-wing, střed = centrist: http://www.cvvm.cas.cz/upl/zpravy/100098s_po20807II.pdf (numbers from Poland, Slovakia and Hungary: http://www.masarykovaakademie.cz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=245&Itemid=38)
- And the meaning of the term "conservative" is different. - I think that there are more differences in the meaning of the term "liberal". But this is not only European-American problem but also problem within Eupore when some people understand under the term "liberalism" laissez fair classical liberals who are focused on economics, supports lower taxes and are fiscal conservative. Some people think that liberals are left-wing liberals who are focused on social issues and are centrist or moderate left-wing in ecomomical issues. Of course, the term conservatism is often problematic but really few terms have sharp border. --Dezidor (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- " Very few people in Europe self-identify as "conservative" or "right-wing" ". In the UK, that may be true of "right-wing", but we have the "Conservative Party" in power at the moment! But, of course, it is true to say that in Europe "conservative" has a much broader meaning than in the US. Most of those that are called "liberals" would be thought of as "conservative" in Europe (and what is "conservative" in US would probably be called "far right" conservative in Europe). DeCausa (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very few people in Europe self-identify as "conservative" or "right-wing", terms that have gone into disuse. And the meaning of the term "conservative" is different, and European conservatives might consider American conservatives to be liberals. TFD (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said elsewhere, I wish this project will not fly, given that it was positioned against project liberalism. In my view, it will in the end lead to even a further polarization of editors and may encourage an unfortunate WP:Battleground mentality with them. The end result may be 90% talk page discussion and 10% good content. Then both groups will end up getting backlash from the larger community and there will be no real winners. I hope to see more cooperation and less polarization of editors. History2007 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason one can't cover a particular POV topic in an NPOV manner. Since I've edited a few of these articles, I agree that there will be a great benefit to having a consistent approach trying to improve their encyclopedic value. What we have instead is occasional benign neglect, punctuated by furious POV warring on both sides, which doesn't benefit anyone. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Jclemens, who (as usual) words this better than I would have managed. Best wishes to everyone for helping create a better encyclopedia. --j⚛e deckertalk to me 19:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DeCausa, I was referring to Europe, not the UK. (Conservatives should take it as an act of faith that the UK is not part of Europe.) I wroter, "Very few people in Europe self-identify as "conservative" or "right-wing", terms that have gone into disuse." The European parties that were called "conservative" or "right" have all disappeared except in Scandinavia, where they now call themselves "moderate" or "centrist". The only places where parties still call themselves conservative are the UK, Canada and New York State. The only place where people call themselves "right-wing" is the United States. TFD (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I see. Not being conservative myself, I generally make do with geography for my continental names. DeCausa (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only place where people call themselves "right-wing" is the United States. No! About 34 % in the Czech Republic, 25% Poland, 22% Slovakia and 29% Hungary call themselves "right-wing". [1]. --Dezidor (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DeCausa, I was referring to Europe, not the UK. (Conservatives should take it as an act of faith that the UK is not part of Europe.) I wroter, "Very few people in Europe self-identify as "conservative" or "right-wing", terms that have gone into disuse." The European parties that were called "conservative" or "right" have all disappeared except in Scandinavia, where they now call themselves "moderate" or "centrist". The only places where parties still call themselves conservative are the UK, Canada and New York State. The only place where people call themselves "right-wing" is the United States. TFD (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Jclemens, who (as usual) words this better than I would have managed. Best wishes to everyone for helping create a better encyclopedia. --j⚛e deckertalk to me 19:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a WikiProject is started it will need a rigorous NPOV definition that is universally valid, not just applicable to the USA. Can someone step forward and give us that definition? --Kleinzach 03:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell the project was started to promote American conservatism. There is no universal validity. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Belated response to Dezidor. People may be asked to describe their views along a left-right axis, and many respondents will place themselves right of centre. But the parties they support do not call themselves right-wing, but centre or centre-right. See for example the self-descriptions of the Centrist Democrat International and the International Democrat Union, which together include almost all the "conservative" parties of the world as members. European parties that were called "The Right" or Conservatives that still exist have abandoned the old descriptions. TFD (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
- Strong Oppose I strongly oppose a WikiProject on such a touchy subject. We should not create a project on something that is so inherently narrow minded. Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.