Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The Conservatism portal is now Featured

Portal:Conservatism has been promoted to WP:Featured Portal. It is the first WPConservatism content substantially edited by a project member (yours truly) to become Featured. The portal was created in May, 2011. It was first nominated in July, but failed. Someone thought it would be a good idea to delete the portal and it went to MFD in Oct. Just a month later it was again nominated for FP and the second time was the trick. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Index of Economic Freedom

The Index of Economic Freedom article needs some updating, particularly under "Ratings", to include a summary of the 2012 findings. I've drafted up a paragraph to add to this section, based on the Associated Press coverage of the Index and the Edwin Feulner op-ed pieces from the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times. As I work for The Heritage Foundation, I potentially have a conflict of interest in making additions to the article, so I'd like to run this by others first. If you think that this paragraph looks ok, I'd be grateful if you'd add it to the article. I'm also introducing myself here as I hope in the future to be a resource to others (where I'm able) and to get advice and assistance. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's my draft:

The results from the 2012 index showed an overall decline in global economic freedom; according to The Heritage Foundation, the average score in its ranking was the second lowest of the last ten years. In particular, the U.S. dropped to 10th place in the ranking, and has now fallen three places since 2008, when it was 7th. A report issued by the Foundation stated that government spending was the cause of the decline, and had "not only failed to arrest the economic crisis, but also—in many countries—seems to be prolonging it." According to the report, activity in the private sector is threatened by the greater government spending, which has increased public debt and led to more bureaucracy.

I haven't had any objections to this suggestion, so I've gone ahead and made the addition. Please let me know if I can be a resource in future. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Consistent life ethic

It's hard to see why this article was added to the project, much less why it would deemed to have "high" importance. CLE is opposed to capital punishment and most wars. While it was originated by a Catholic cardinal, its exponents are more liberal than conservative: Eileen Egan, Daniel Berrigan, Philip Berrigan, actress Patricia Heaton, novelist Wendell Berry, the current Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, activist Jim Wallis and Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff. The article was tagged without explanation.[1]   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For once I have to agree here - the only prominent conservative figure that fits that profile is Ron Paul, who is fairly liberal on everything other than economics. I'd second removing it - at least for now. Toa Nidhiki05 22:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There are many liberals associated with consistent life ethic, and the philosophy is anathema to modern American Republicanism which generally supports war and capital punishment. CLE does not have a position on the liberal–conservative continuum. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have as much of a claim to being conservative most of the other articles tagged. Opposes abortion and euthenasia, follows theology set out by the Catholic Church. Note too that hanging and flogging are not really part of the views any mainstream conservative party in Western Euorpe. TFD (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the agenda items is "economic injustice", which isn't an especially conservative issue either.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not appear to part of their agenda, but just something that a Wikipedia editor added. They claim that they are not "statist", but "advocate an activist role for the state on particularly controversial issues [mainly] the coervice power of civil law in defense of fetal life...." TFD (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we could argue it for days, but the key question with any Wikipedia dispute is "what do the sources say?" Does any reliable source call CLE a conservative concept?   Will Beback  talk  11:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading the discussions as to "scope" above, and the project page, I do not see any requirement that all topics be called "conservative" nor any requirement that all topics which are called "conservative" by someone automatically fall into the scope of the project. Using either non-version as some sort of absolute seems contrary to how projects are run on Wikipedia. The only requirement is that the members of the project find the topic to be of "interest" to them and nothing else.

This means that if someone called the "Gnarph Really Evil Party" "conservative" somewhere, there is no need for the members of the project to agree to having it fall into the range of the project. Nor is there a reason to say that the "Gnarph Nice Liberal Party" which is not uniformly called "conservative" can not fall into the area of the project if the members of the project so determine. The discussions to the contrary, the project page and the project members are the determinants of what is, and is not, in the project. Cheers - I hope this makes my opinion on this muddying quite clear. Collect (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of conservative like to surf. Would it be OK to add articles about surfing, subject to later review and discussion on this page? If the article isn't about conservativism, then why add it?   Will Beback  talk  12:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Add what you feel the members of the project would reasonably be interested in. The worst that could happen would be that the community finds the additions to be disruptive, and I suppose you would justify all the rejected additions. Cheers - go right ahead - I see no problem with any additions as long as they are not deemed disruptive by the Wikipedia community. Collect (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The link to the Conservatism Project should stay out. It has been added and removed a few times now, and the issue is contentious at this point. The topic is not about Conservatism. That it is of interest to some project members means just as much as surfing does, as pointed out by Will Beback. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And what about my position - that the project has no such rules listed - and that any article posted in good faith should be considered (then removed if members wish it removed as is true on all other projects)? Add the other topics you feel would be of interest - subject only to the caveats I gave above. Collect (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your position throws open the city gates so that the Vandals can run amok. Your position renders useless the concept of a WikiProject. Everything is possible, WP:Ignore All Rules, chaos and anarchy. I will not adopt that stance. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Which "Vandals" have so far attacked this page? I see no evidence of such - and if such appear, we can surely get this page semi-protected in a flash. In fact, can you show me any WikiProject which has been thus attacked? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandals as in Vandals; a hyperbolic bit of sarcasm that was, I'm sure, caught by other readers. This back-and-forth is going nowhere, so "Ta". Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am literate - and carefully capitalized your hypothetical Vandals. Absent any remote reason to expect such here, it is not necessary for us to have rules to prevent them arriving. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As a project member let me add a third opinion. Although the vandalism concern is warranted, given the wide scope that I support, any article that may be related to Conservatism maybe tagged as part of the Wikiproject. That being said, wikiprojects have the right to remove any article from its support, as has been done with Ku Klux Klan.

In time, even with NPOV, this wikiproject maybe overrun by editors who wish to use it as a vehicle to attack Conservatism, as is already claimed of the entirity of Wikipedia by those at Conservapedia; however, diligence, and keeping with NPOV and VER will hopefully stop that from happening. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• The bottom line here is that only one editor has expressed support, and several have agreed that it does not fall under this project. Therefore I'll remove the project tag.   Will Beback  talk  06:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Conservatism will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in conservative history. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012

Editors interested in the WikiCup have a couple more weeks to sign up. It's a tremendous opportunity to hone your editing skills, and have a lot of fun too! Members Toa Nidhiki05 and Ruby2010 have signed up. Hopefully they'll enter a few {{WikiProject Conservatism}} articles in the competition. Good luck to them both! – Lionel ^(talk) 01:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's right. Ruby and Toa have signed up, and I've been signed up since December. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that really a constructive comment, Bink? Toa Nidhiki05 01:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a frank "me too" comment, not exactly constructive, but supportive. Why? Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

My comment was rhetorical, Bink. Quite frankly I don't see a 'me too' comment as that constructive. Who does it really help? Toa Nidhiki05 01:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Toa, who are you talking to? Who's Bink? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, don't be dick. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The essay you cite specifically warns not to use it on others as it may then be inferred as applying more to you.

Implicitly or explicitly calling people dicks is a dick-move: don't use this essay as a justification to do so.

Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not cite an essay, Collect. My statement to Lionelt stands on its own merits. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? Explain your edit summary of: WikiCup 2012: WP:DICK if you dis not refer to that essay! I rather think the exact cite of the essay by you counts as citing an essay. Unless placing a link to an essay does not count as placing a link to an essay. Cheers. Now since you clearly did cite that essay, your demural fails. Collect (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, my edit summary cited the essay. Thanks for the correction. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Shunning, especially when done explicitly, is anti-social and contrary to collegial editing.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Reagan Day festivities

Tomorrow is Ronald Reagan Day and considering that this is WikiProjectConservatism it would be great to organize some kind of event to commemorate the holiday. Oh, wait!!! The Conservatism Portal, a newly featured portal, will automatically celebrate the holiday by displaying Reagan-centric content. This is incredible!!! That means we can all watch the Super Bowl and get drunk knowing that back in Wikiland our very own Reagan celebration is taking place! – Lionel ^(talk) 03:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well not all of us can get drunk, but I'm down with the Super Bowl thing. Toa Nidhiki05 03:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured Content Collaboration

I don't know about you, but I'm hungry for another bronze star. I checked Timeline of modern American conservatism against the featured list criteria and the timeline is close. Who wants to join me in a collaboration to promote the timeline to FL? – Lionel ^(talk) 05:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never tried to get something like this to FL, but I might be interested in helping if we can get some more, more experienced editors involved. Toa Nidhiki05 20:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, I noticed a 1) bunch of books in the footnotes/references that don't have page numbers. Don't they all require page numbers? 2) shouldn't everything be in present tense? 3) if the general rules apply to Timelines, then we've got some serious over-wikilinking problem with people's names. Let me know. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I know the answers: all the book refs need page numbers (I'll start with the editor who added them with missing page numbers); I will standardize all verbs to present tense; if only the first or second instance of a person's name gets wikilinked, I will unlink all the subsequent instances. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Been tied up with foolishness at AN3/ANI/AN/ABC/XYZ... I'll take a look... – Lionel ^(talk) 03:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Kumioku

In case you haven't noticed this esteemed editor from WPUS is having a total meltdown. I made an attempt to intervene, but things aren't looking good. I think we may be looking at a resignation. Anyway he has this amazing bot. This thing can find your slippers for you, light your pipe and make martinis. Can you imagine what we could do with the bot? We could tag hundreds thousands millions of articles. We could classify all of the BLPs. Add portal links. Assessments. Statistics. YOU NAME IT! If any of you are friends with him maybe you could ask him to let us have it. Afterall, if he resigns, what will he do with a bot? Tell him we promise to take good care of it: we'll feed it and take it for a walk every day. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting Op-Ed from an RS & Example

• Charlotte Allen (19 February 2011). "Conservatives vs. liberals". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 19 February 2012. The problem is this: We conservatives think liberals are silly; they think we're evil.
• Nile Gardiner (16 February 2012). "California Congresswoman calls conservative leaders 'demons'. Will Barack Obama condemn her?". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 19 February 2012.

Now, there are examples of conservatives calling liberals or moderates as evil, often reported by left or left-of-center reporters, however given that there appears (at least to me) to be an effort to scientifically back the position that Conservatives are somehow defective this reminds me of attacks against Jewish persons that they are evil and scientifically less-human that had once occurred openly. There must be room here on Wikipedia for an article or a section regarding this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

For instance there is an article Anti-communism, perhaps there is sufficient reliable sourced references to write an article Anti-conservatism?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the reverse also to be found in the LA Times:

• Diana Wagman (19 February 2012). "Liberals vs. conservatives". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 19 February 2012. I don't agree. I don't want to be friends with someone who is a member of the tea party or is a Newt Gingrich Republican. We are not the same. I equate their political views with thoughtlessness, intolerance and narcissism. I think they are not kind or empathetic. And my neighbor made it clear that he does not respect my opinions or me.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is enough information, it just needs to be well-sourced so at the inevitable AfD it gets kept. Toa Nidhiki05 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the recongized slight liberal bias of wikipedia, as admitted by Jim Wales, and commented on by others, perhaps this should start in an incubator or in a users (or this wikiprojects) sandbox prior to is being transfered to a main article space? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Incubator is an excellent idea. That's what it's for. We could add a section of anti-conservative slurs, like Anti-LGBT rhetoric. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hear, here! A lot to talk about (and Incubator should hatch brilliance). —— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd support an incubator as well. IMO, our first priority should be getting enough sources to confirm it as notable - once we get the basics (history of anti-conservatism, prominent anti-cons and terms, conservative reaction, etc.) we could add organizations or people that have been labeled as anti-conservative. Toa Nidhiki05 03:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Input requested

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikiProject_Conservatism. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Project scope

It seems to me that, maybe, it would be beneficial if the project had a few independent sources which clearly outline the intended scope of the project. I know of a reference book/encyclopedia on the American right, although I can't remember the exact title right now, which might be useful in helping to define the scope. But I do think personally that, maybe, the project would work a bit better as a unit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Liberalism, particularly given the different usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in other countries, like Australia. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

John, there is a veteran group of members here who resist any change to the scope. The efforts to change the scope have been incessant, vitriolic and completely unsuccessful. Mainly because the veteran group views the efforts as having anti-conservatism motivations, and because they fear it will change the makeup and complexion of the group. And they have a point: the group is highly motivated to remain intact, and if a change to the scope would fracture the group, they reject it. And as we all know, a wikiproject is a group of people, not a collection of articles.

Placing WPLiberalism under the umbrella of WPPolitics hasn't done much for WPLib. WPLib has a paltry 442 articles and a mere 9 members. One of them the infamous POV edit warrior/banned user WikiManOne/BelloWello. The project is moribund and the talk page a ghost town. This project on the other hand is growing, vibrant and productive. Over 4000 articles, almost 100 members, a newsletter--The Right Stuff, an incubator, a Featured portal, and a host of other resources, benefits and features--too many to enumerate. The project is nurturing conservatism satellites on Commons and WikiSource. Just as WPLib has received nothing from WPPolitics, the same would be true for WPConservatism. Currently our banner enjoys equal placement with all other projects. Becoming part of WPPolitics would mean our banner would be absorbed and would catastrophically impair our ability to recruit new members. To place WPConservatism under WPPolitics would undoubtedly kill the momentum and retard our ability to grow: it would be be a death sentence for us all. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

4000th page tagged--Congrats WPConservatism!

WPConservatism has just reached yet another milestone: with the tagging of Paul Gosar we now have 4000 pages within the project. Gosar is a Republican Member of the US House of Representatives. Keep up the great work! – Lionel ^(talk) 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher delisted

Margaret Thatcher, a TOP importance article, was recently delisted as a Good Article in an individual GAR. The delisting was contentious and the article is now undergoing community GAR. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:GAR#Margaret_Thatcher. Your participation is welcome. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

John Cornyn Article

Hello Conservatism Project editors -

I don't know if this falls within your purview, but there have been some disruptive POV edits of late to John Cornyn, and though I have reverted many of them, my sense is that there is still a bias in the article and that to some degree at least Cornyn is not being fairly or completely represented. For example, the article attempts to juxtapose Cornyn's support for the Bush tax cuts against his opposition to the extension of the payroll tax hiatus. My reversions have attempted to remove the WP:OR bit about this indicating a "catering" to the wealthy and a disregard for the middle class. However - the why of Cornyn's positions on those issues, preferably in his own words, strikes me as important in understanding them - and ditto that for lots of other stuff in the article.

The fact is that, as a liberal progressive who dislikes Cornyn and his policies, I would have a tough time finding really good sources to present an adequate picture of the senator, his positions, and his political thinking. But while I may not like Cornyn, I really despise political axe-grinding disguised in an encyclopedia article as fact. Any help from responsible conservatism project editors would be appreciated. And if you know of any good admins...we may need to invoke some help from one to adjudicate some of this. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Christianity and Conservativism

I recently WP:SPLIT off the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article from Sandra Fluke (which is at AfD).

I also created Contraceptive mandates, which was instantly marked for speedy deletion but survived somehow.

My article on the Democratic narrative War on Women is also at AfD.

Would anyone like to work on these with me, or create a Conscience protection article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Help with requests

I work for Heritage, and I've recently made two requests to add new information to The Heritage Foundation article that I'd prefer not to add myself. Since it seems like the Talk page there isn't being watched and my request edit templates haven't brought any response, I was hoping that someone here would be able to take a look. The two requests are regarding the November GOP debate on foreign policy and Heritage's blog and social media presence. Also, I am new to Wikipedia and new to this WikiProject, but I would like to help in other ways. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help improve conservatism-related articles on Wikipedia! Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome! And done! – Lionel ^(talk) 22:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP and NPOV check request

I am proposing that the article Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy be checked against WP:BLP & WP:NPOV. Please see the discussion I have started here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A single editor appears to be editing the BLP to increase the weight of controversy sections increasing a negative POV of the subject. This is not keeping with WP:CRIT; additionally the edits have added unnecessary multiple or lengthy quotes, which is not keeping with WP:QUOTEFARM. Assistance and additional opinions are requested, as the editor is not responding significantly on the talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessing Articles

I attempted to assess the 9-9-9 Plan article, and it looks right, but it didn't show up here under the assessment log, so I was wondering if I did it correctly. Thanks for your help. Light-jet pilot (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your assessment looks good and thanks! That log is updated by a bot on a regular basis--however the bot hasn't updated in a few days. I assessed 200 articles 3 days ago and they haven't shown up yet either. I'll wait a couple more days and then see if the bot needs to be repaired. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

New bot which will help our project

I've built a bot to help out with odd jobs around the project. Check it out here: LioneltBot. (When you see its capabilities you'll see why it's probably best that we don't tell the anti-conservatism editors about this.) – Lionel ^(talk) 23:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Free research database

For a free HighBeam account go here: [2]. You're welcome. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Request Good article review: Krista Branch

It is requested that a member review the following Good article nominee:

Page: Krista Branch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator: User:The Devil's Advocate

Comments:
Anyone willing to take this up?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind but due to previous involvement with you I would rather you express willingness for me to do so before I begin; if you don't want me to, fine. Toa Nidhiki05 00:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Path to Prosperity: edit request

A couple of weeks ago, I added a new section to The Path to Prosperity, providing a few details about Ryan's budget proposal for 2013, titled The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal. At the same time, I drafted a short paragraph to add some commentary from The Heritage Foundation and the Center for American Progress (for a balance of viewpoints). As I've mentioned in requests here before, I work for Heritage and rather than directly adding anything that cites to Heritage I'd prefer to run it by other editors first. On that basis, I made an edit request on the Talk page there, but it doesn't look like anyone has been able to review my material just yet. I'd be grateful if an editor from this WikiProject could take a look, and add the information if they think it looks ok.

This is also a good opportunity to mention that while I've made some updates to the Path to Prosperity article, I think more may need doing to include information on the 2013 proposal and generally bring the article up to date. Would any editors here be interested in helping with this process? Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Light-jet pilot (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Light-jet pilot! Kalkaska sand (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A member has been mentioned in the mainstream media

Yahoo! News did an analysis of the editing of 4 GOP presidential candidates and NYyankees51 made the article! Read full the article here: "The Republican primary, as told by Wikipedia edits". – Lionel ^(talk) 23:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney at FAC

Wasted Time R has nominated Mitt Romney for FA. Add your evaluation here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mitt Romney/archive1. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with Edwin Feulner article

Hi, I'd like to help improve the content of Heritage Foundation president Edwin Feulner's article and have placed a request on the article's Talk page to suggest some changes, including adding some citations. Some of the edits I've suggested have been made by an editor who was working on the article, but not all, and there's been no reply to my edit request on the Talk page. As I've noted here before, I work for Heritage, so I'd have a conflict of interest in editing the article myself. Could anyone here take a look and add the other citations I provided? Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Tea Party politicians

Specifically, Talk:List of Tea Party politicians#Post-AfD clarification and possible slimming down. Input would be much appreciated. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Request Good article nomination: Scottish Conservative Party leadership election, 2011

It is requested that a member review the following Good article nominee:

Page: Scottish Conservative Party leadership election, 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator: Mwhite148

Comments:

Request Good article review: The Broken Compass: How British Politics Lost its Way

It is requested that a member review the following Good article nominee:

Page: The Broken Compass: How British Politics Lost its Way (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator: Jprw

Comments:

Request Peer review: Krista Branch

It is requested that members participate in a Peer Review of the following article:

Page: Krista Branch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator: User:The Devil's Advocate

Comments:

Read my lips: no new taxes FAR

I have nominated Read my lips: no new taxes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This looks headed toward being delisted. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Taxmageddon

On the Bush tax cuts article I've suggested a new section and it would be helpful if members of this WikiProject could provide their input. The addition I've written includes discussion of the news coverage and ongoing debate surrounding what has become known as "Taxmageddon", and I believe this may be of interest to editors here. I haven't added it into the article yet because a source I've used is from The Heritage Foundation, where I work, so I would prefer to have some feedback, if possible. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Urgent: Krista Branch GA

Krista Branch has been up for GA for over 3 months and urgently needs a reviewer. She is known for "I am America" which is the anthem of the TEA Party. Do you need any more motivation than that? If anyone has GA experience please click here: Talk:Krista Branch/GA1. Let's git er done! – Lionel ^(talk) 07:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Current AfD nomination of List of Tea Party politicians

Hi folks. List of Tea Party politicians comfortably survived AfD in May, but it has been nominated again. You may want to comment on the AfD and/or work on the article itself. Best, BDD (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change our logo

WikiProject Conservatism don't care

I propose that we change our logo from Edmund Burke to the most ferrocious and tenacious animal on the planet, he's ruthless and determined and always gets his way, usually, I give you... the honey badger. LMFAO. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Major change to socially conservative orgs & people

An editor is changing the ledes of pro-family/pro-life articles from "social conservative" to "traditional values." I've reverted where the new sentence is ungrammatical, but left the others for the time being. IMO the "social conservatism" article is the better wikilink because it best describes the orgs & people at issue. Other thoughts? – Lionel ^(talk) 10:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

By ungrammatical i presume you mean the instances where traditional value had an "s" at the end. Is that what you meant? Pass a Method talk 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Btw, i wouldn't have reverted you if i felt you were not stalking my edits. But you're behavior in the past has clearly shown you are stalking me. Pass a Method talk 10:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that you just confessed to WP:POINTy editing? Reverting based on retaliation is disruptive. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not revert based on retaliation. I simply have a low faith in your editing ability because of some of your past behaviors (including stalking). This is why i give less consideration to your opinion. Thats not retaliatory editing. Pass a Method talk 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Guess what... after your little stunt of unilaterally renaming all of the "Homosexuality and [insert religion]" articles there are probably about a dozen editors "stalking" you. Hmmm... and here you are again unilaterally making major changes to articles. I guess you didn't learn your lesson the last time. And btw, before you accuse someone of "stalking" maybe you should read WP:HOUND so you will know what you are talking about.– Lionel ^(talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I havent noticed stalking from anyone but you so stop trying to divert attention from yourself . In fact, at one point recently i was thinking of leaving a note on your talk page about it again but i thought i would give you the benefit of the doubt and avoud a message on your talk page. But once again today, you show up today. From now on i will propose for you to avoid interacting with me and i will do the same. This way you can prove that you are not in fact stalking me. In case we do happen to incidentaly interact, you can instead leave a message on my talk page or on a wikiproject about my edit. The next time you show up at my edits i will post about it on a noticeboard. Pass a Method talk 12:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As for major changes, i dont see how changing a term with a synonymous one can be considered a "major change". Pass a Method talk 13:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If it were "synonymous" it would lead to the same article. It doesn't, therefore is not "synonymous" by Wikipedia usage. Collect (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with classifying parties as 'conservative' in non-western contexts

Hi there. I think this is a valuable project, but I do have one concern which I've seen a few times, which is the extension of 'conservatism' to countries with political systems very different from those in America and Europe. For example, I've seen political groups in Russia tagged as part of WikiProject Conservatism - but who are the 'conservatives' in modern Russia? Those who want to restore the Soviet Union? Supporters of Putin's government? Those who support right-wing politics in general? It's not obviously clear. Likewise, in countries like Egypt or Iran - does 'conservatism' refer to supporters of the old regime, or religious conservatives, or what? Taiwanese politics is based around the division between closer and further relations with China - who are the 'conservatives' there?

All I'm asking for a little restraint in tagging people and groups as part of this project. Not every country has a political system like that of the United States, and not every political system has a faction that corresponds to what we think of as 'conservatism'. I'm not saying this template can't be used to tag groups outside of the US and Europe, but think carefully before you do. Robofish (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Conservatism can be defined as contextual, in which case every country has conservatives. Or it can be defined as an ideology with specific principles, in which case it is limited to Western Europe and countries that have copied European conservatism. Specifically they are parties that developed out of a royalist or aristocratic reaction to liberalism. I believe though that both Putin's party and the KMT consider themselves conservatives. However I see no reason to include liberal, religious, post-communist, nationalist or other parties that do not consider themselves conservatives. TFD (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your beliefs are errant. Putin does not call himself "conservative" nor did the KMT call itself "conservative". They are both "nationalist". That does not make either example "conservative." All of which misses the point - any project "interested" in an article is free, on Wikipedia, to tag that article as being one of interest to that project. It does not make the subject of the article "conservative" as in this case. And such a tag can be discussed here, and is subject to consensus here. Collect (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"At its most recent national convention in St. Petersburg in November 2009, Vladimir Putin's United Russia described itself again as a conservative party. Officially, it stands for the country's heritage and its values."[3] See the Greenwood History of China entry for the KMT: "politically conservative".[4] TFD (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your "conservative Putin" nationalised some industries. Not "conservative" AFAICT, except as you note in being nationalist. Which I already accepted. The KMT is now labelled "conservative" mainly in its stance on nationalism also. Again - I said that already. [5] calls the KMT "centre-right" which is a very broad area. The Economist [6] says the KMT had a substantial shift in 2001 to reunificationism, which is unlikely to be viewed as "conservative." In short, Houston, we have a problem in trying to use "political spectrums" as contant in any sense of the word. Collect (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am having difficulty following your criteria for inclusion. You vote to include the liberal National Party of Honduras and the right-wing extremist Swiss People's Party because someone once called them that, yet exclude other parties. Actually nationalization of industry can be conservative, Bismarck nationalized industry. TFD (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no "criteria for inclusion." I have made no such "votes." I suggest that inclusion is entirely up to the people here, using WP:CONSENSUS and nothing more. I assert nothing about what I "know" to be the "truth" - I suggest that the way Wikiprojects work is by doing what CONSENSUS dictates, not by me giving some sily "criteria" which I would impose on this project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus only comes about after editors requested something be included/excluded. Are you saying that you have no criteria for requesting inclusion/exclusion before consensus is reached? Or do you have criteria for your decisions? TFD (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You claimed I have made "votes" here to include some particular party. I assert that my position has been, and remains, that it is up to WP:CONSENSUS and not any "votes" as to what should be part of the project and what should not be part of the project. Is there some actual reason for your iterated queries here? Collect (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Vietnamese diacritics

• RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan filmography needs reviewers

This is a really cool list with lots of cool info about Reagan. Did you know "Throughout his film career, his mother often answered much of his fan mail"? You can help get this to Featured List by clicking here. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Help with Bob Corker article

Hello, I work on Bob Corker's campaign and I'm looking for help in improving weaker areas of his Wikipedia article. Currently there is little information about his tenure as Mayor of Chattanooga. I have proposed a few paragraphs on the article's discussion page that I think could work in the article under the heading about his mayorship. Here is the link to that request: Talk:Bob_Corker#Information_to_add_to_Mayor_of_Chattanooga Since there have not been any replies yet I've come here to see if anyone can help. Please see my message on the discussion page for more details. Thanks. Mark from tn (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Tea Party politicians again

There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of Tea Party politicians#List needs scrubbing that could do with broader input. Thanks in advance! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Roanoke, Virginia Obama speech

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Barack Obama#. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for editors to access free research databases!

The quest for getting Wikipedia editors the sources they need for articles related to conservatism and other subjects is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

• Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by the talk page of User:Ocaasi, who is overseeing these projects, if you have any questions.--JayJasper (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"How right-wingers took over Wikipedia"

Contrary to the overwhelming consensus of the members of this wikiproject, it is the right wingers who are running this sanitarium, according to Marc McDonald. He writes, "Increasingly over the years, literally thousands of Wikipedia’s political articles have gradually and quietly been given a right-wing spin" and explains "the right-wing “contributors” are ferociously tenacious. They will go in and sanitize and slant an article over and over until it reads the way they want it to. These people are well-organized, ruthless and determined and they usually eventually get their way, via sheer blunt force." For evidence he offers the "sanitized" George Bush and what he describes as extremely unflattering Bill Clinton article. IMO Mr. McDonald should be blocked for fostering a WP:Battleground mentality. McDonald's ridiculous and irrational "analysis" makes fascinating reading. But the piece de resistance comes by way of the first post in the Reader Comments section (emph. mine):

You don't know the half of it. The editors at WikiProject Conservatism have teamed up with the exiles and wikihaters at Wikipediocracy to oust administrators they think are too liberal. There's an ongoing effort to purge Wikipedia of liberal editors and entrap them in time consuming arbitration processes. This, along with off-site coordination of editors paid through advocacy groups like the Susan B. Anthony List has been steadily eroding Wikipedia's ability to remain an impartial resource. --Scarb

My jaw dropped in disbelief when I read that. Maybe he should've interviewed LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, or NYYankees, or Haymaker, or any of the dozen other editors banned in the Abortion arbom case. Ironic to be sure. I'll paraphrase our VP and leave you with this 3-letter word: LMFAO. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: WTF is "Wikipediocracy?"

Liberals tend to have a real talent for projection. This is a stunning example. Oh, and I found this: Wikipediocracy Belchfire (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

For the second time, please stop referring to critics as "liberals" as if that word was a pejorative. This isn't a battleground. Marc McDonald is absolutely correct, and given our demographic in engineering and science, our active editors are overwhelmingly conservative, with liberals in the minority. Howver, many of these so-called conservatives refer to themselves as "libertarians". The idea that "there's an ongoing effort to purge Wikipedia of liberal editors and entrap them in time consuming arbitration processes" has been true since I got here in 2004. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, that's something of an understatement. It's not just that there's an effort to purge liberals, but that Lionelt is leading it.[7] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The accusation of liberals controlling WP must be restricted to the political pages. "conservatives" editing pages on math or chemistry are not in the scope of the problem at hand of radical liberals controlling all political pages.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What they are doing is freaking out that these full-time liberal propaganda editors are getting called out for who they are. Unfortunately, there are many lined up behind them to act as the judge, jury and executioner to support them through arbitration, which will ultimately be decided by yet another group of liberal WP lifers. Thus is the story of the WP socialist propaganda machine.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

500,000 jobs lost under Bush administration?

Can anyone confirm that the US lost 500,000 private sector jobs under Bush? Should this be added to the encyclopedia article on the Bush admin? Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, we lost 3.5 million jobs in the last six months of the Bush Administration alone. And another 3.4 million in the first 6 months of the Obama Administration (whether this was a result of Obama's immediate implementation of "job-killing" policies or a continuation of the economic catastrophe that was the Bush Administration depends on your perspective, I suppose). The economy began adding jobs in October 2010, and has steadily added jobs since (source). MastCell ^Talk 06:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The content best belongs to the event 2007–2009 recession in the United States. If one president is mentioned, both should be mentioned, as well as a mention of continued over 8% unemployment (U-3) since, and the wider (and larger) U-6 rate (closer to the traditional way of figuring unemployment); sources: CNBC, WSJ, & BLS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The unemployment rate is 8.3%. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, if the source(s) links it to Bush, only Bush should be mentioned. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do they? Do they not also say, as mentioned above, of the increased job loss at the beginning of the Obama administration, and the continued high unemployment during the present administration? These are both factual.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Members List

Where can I find the members list? Thanks in advance, ```Buster Seven Talk 02:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You can find it in the about us tab or simply click here be sure to scroll down to find the list it is right under the Right stuff newspaper, I hope this means your joining we love new members John D. Rockerduck (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Planned RfC being made by User:StillStanding-247

You can find it here; evidently this user decided he wanted to file an RfC about this Project. He must have neglected to read the 'Before requesting comment' section of the Requests for Comment page, where it notes:

Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved".

Accordingly, I doubt this will be taken seriously, but project members may be interested in watching it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have notified StillStanding on their user talk page of this discussion, as you should have done yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where I am obligated to do so - the user is planning to file an RfC and hasn't notified the project or its members. I decided to notify the project here so that the members of this project can watch it, as a WikiProject is a group of members and, as such, and an RfC on this WikiProject is an RfC on the 81 members of this project. It directly concerns each and every member of this project, as it is a motion being filed against them. They have the right to read the charges they are being accused of, as well as the evidence. Posting it here, on the main page, is less time-exhaustive than informing the 80 other members individually, on their own talk pages. This is not a discussion, per say, but a notification about the planned RfC. What's the issue? Toa Nidhiki05 00:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with giving the RfC author a heads-up, but seriously... was it really necessary? If he isn't already watching this page, how can he claim to know what's going on in this WikiProject? It seems to me that simple due diligence would require that he already have this Talk page watchlisted. Belchfire-TALK 00:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted, thank you.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
God forbid an editor create a scratch page to work on a sincere RfC after being hounded, WP:HARASSed, and Wikistalked by members of your little POV-pushing clique. He's under no obligation to notify you till it's filed. You've harassed so many editors it's a wonder nobody has filed one sooner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.86.32 (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do believe that, prior to actually filing the RFC, we should talk about it here to see if the filing can be avoided. However, we're still putting it together, so we don't have anything concrete to talk about. I do want to say that, contrary to what Toa suggests, this is an RFC about this organization, not its members. It is not our goal to shut down the project or to penalize its members. Rather, we would like the project to comply with the greater goals of Wikipedia through organization changes. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A WikiProject is nothing but a group of members. WikiProjects can't edit pages, insert references, reply to comments, or do really anything on their own. The editors do everything and it is they that an RfC would be targeting. By definition, it affects the members of the project and what they can do. I'll point out you never once discussed anything here, which is a bit suspicious as it is almost required for an RfC. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I did notice the hatting. It's not exactly nice of you. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, you are wrong. As the RFC states, we have discussed this for six-years with no change in behavior by this project. Furthermore, it was recommended on ANI in February that the next step is an RFC. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This page was created in 2011. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. This page is only the latest iteration. It has ample precedent and discussion as the Conservative notice board.[8][9]. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that Wikipedia:Conservative notice board, which was deleted as a vote stacking page now redirects here. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually the page you note now (which was created as a redirect, and not as anything else) was not the same in content as the one deleted in the past, nor has this redirect been deemed a "vote-stacking page" at any place in Wikipedia. Two pages with the same name != the same page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Collect, WP and NB are not the same thing and to say so is a ridiculous stretch. The WikiProject was founded in 2011 and the NB was deleted in 2006, which is 5 years of separation. Also, Viriditas, I was heavily involved in that discussion and there was no sort of consensus at all about the project. If anything, most editors agreed WikiProject Conservatism, as with all WikiProjects, can define its scope and can tag whatever articles it wants. The closing user didn't recommend anything, he pointed out the options available. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, this WikiProject is a continuation, both in intent and action, of the noticeboard. That's why there's a redirect. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The word for bovine excrement leaps to mind when someone asserts that something ended five years before this project was started is the same thing as this project! Such a hiatus is remarkable indeed for you to make that assertion with a striaght face. Collect (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that. I trust you'll forgive me for remaining unpersuaded, even in the face of thinly-concealed vulgarities and other equally sound arguments. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet you haven't shared any sort of evidence that we are a secret cabal that was originally the Conservative Notice Board. The overwhelming evidence rejects that hypothesis. The CNB was deleted five years before WikiProject Conservatism was created. Interestingly, the discussion on the NB rejects the idea that it was a WikiProject emphatically.

I will repeat that the RfC has no merit and the fact that you never discussed anything here proves your intent is not to hold a disussion on this Project, but rather to have it removed. You failed to follow the process and this will hurt your case in the end, and your case is already extremely weak as is. Just a cursory look at the talk page shows most of your 'evidence' consists of unfounded allegations, misrepresentation of pages and their intent, and ad homenim attacks on scope and tagging, which have already been debated at least a dozen times and the idea that either need to change rejected in all of them. Most of the comments are veiled attacks on particular editor with no diffs or sources, while other sections appear to invent quotes, positions, and ideas the Project supposedly holds. If any of it were true, you could easily back each sentence up with a source. Instead, it is the opinion of a couple of editors, who themselves have had issues with canvassing and edit warring. Just to go in-depth here, let's take this wonderful line:

Furthermore, the project has actively added project tags to articles for the purposes of inserting a conservative talking point, reaction, or POV. According to the project, conceivably every article on Wikipedia could be tagged under the aegis of WikiProject Conservatism provided that at least one conservative somewhere on planet Earth has an opinion about it.

There are no diffs to prove anything in this, and the last sentence is an invented argument and thus a straw man fallacy, attempting to frame the Project's position and then attack it on that created position. The second and third arguments there are just as silly, with the second making the idea that we should work to improve all articles to featured class seem evil. The last is by far the worst, attributing an essay written solely by Lionelt to the project (thus creating an association fallacy) as well as calling the conservative reference list a list of 'recommended' references when it is really a list of sources that are 'available for use', in a similar manner to the WikiProject Shared Resources, which incidentally lists articles by topic as well. The whole RfC seems to me to be a bunch of rhetoric combined with basic logical fallacies, while it fails to assume good faith by essentially accusing the Project (and by extent all members) of "disrupting articles under their project scope to push a conservative POV". I don't expect this to go anywhere and I don't see this as anymore than yet another attempt to forcibly change the scope of the Project despite the fact that Projects have the exclusive right to define their scope. Toa Nidhiki05 00:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about it right now, yet we aren't agreeing on much. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Holly cow! I Just read this WikiProject_Conservatism#.22How_right-wingers_took_over_Wikipedia.22 and I am shocked at the animosity. Can't people just get along? Or is it that real world conflicts are not different in Wikipedia? Cwobeel (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it false? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC needs input

Input is needed at an RfC regarding tea party: Talk:List_of_Tea_Party_politicians#RfC:_What_is_criterion_for_inclusion_in_this_list.3F. --Noleander (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Conservatism IRC channel

In light of this discussion, I'd like anyone who knows anything about the existence of this alleged WikiProject Conservatism IRC channel to share it publicly. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually it looks far more like you are interested in stalking the people who are members of this project than anything else. In facg, to this ooutside observer, it looks a great deal like you are using improper means to defame other editors - which is likely against the Five Pillars from the get-go. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like you're violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and a few other basic policies in an attempt to spin my question into something it's not. Cheers. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have read and reread your post. My opinion thereon is well-founded, and your instant desire to label everyone you meet as "uncivil" etc. or "not assuming good faith" is wearisome now - you have used the same litany in so many places. As for whether my opinion about your post is correct or not - I suggest you see what others say. Robbie Burns comes to mind with his observation on seeing ourselves as others see us. Cheers and have a nice day. Collect (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as an outside observer, I should point out there is no need to declare IRC channels, just as there is no need to declare emails or skype conversations or any other fora. IRC is a mode of communication which is not policed by Wikipedia, or editors on Wikipedia. I don't condone the alleged behaviour, but nor do I condone all these accusations. Focussing on on-Wiki activity, which can be dealt with on-wiki. Worm^TT(talk) 10:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be part of a smear campaign against specific groups of this WikiProject and the WikiProject as a whole. Is there somewhere where we can take these concerns?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As another outside, but very interested, comment, I don't think you need to be concerned that it has, yet, grown to the proportions of being a campaign. It's just an IP starting a talk thread on Still Standing's user talk page, and another editor unconnected with Still Standing raising a concern about supposed outing at AN. Still asked here if anyone wants to inform him about any existing IRC. If someone wants to inform him of anything they can. If anyone else does not want to, or if the IRC does not exist, no one has to say anything. Beyond that, Worm is correct that what matters is what happens on site. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it appears that the IP making the accusations was SkepticAnonymous and that the claims were false. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And your posts stand on their own - still. Seeking to defame other editors in such a manner is the height of ill-faith, and a suggest a full apology on your part is called for. Especially since others had pointed this out before your post. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Being so willing to destroy an entire WikiProject and its editors that you are willing to even entertain the proposal of an IP sockpuppet of a blocked user, perhaps. I wouldn't call it defamation (due to the legal usage of the term), but it is certainly not good faith editing. An apology is warranted - you were wrong, so admit it and move on. Toa Nidhiki05 03:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in destroying the project. I do want to stop the vote-banking, though. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)