Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main   Talk   Portal   Showcase   Assessment   Collaboration   Incubator   Guide   Newsroom   About Us   Commons  


Shortcuts:

WikiProject Conservatism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to conservatism. You can learn more about us here. If you would like to help, please join the project, inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list below. Guidelines and other useful information can be found here.


Tasks

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
vieweditdiscusshistorywatch

Conservatism articles

Conservatism article rating and assessment scheme
(NB: Listing, Log & Stats are updated on a daily basis by a bot)
Daily log of status changes
Current Statistics
Index · Statistics · Log · Update


See also


Reports


Dashboard

Alerts

Good article nominees
Requests for comments
Requested moves

Assessment log

April 20, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

April 17, 2015

Renamed

Assessed

April 16, 2015

Renamed

Assessed

April 15, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

April 13, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

April 12, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

April 9, 2015

Assessed

  • Sean Fieler (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

April 8, 2015

Assessed

Removed

April 7, 2015

Reassessed

  • Steve Hilton (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

April 4, 2015

Reassessed

April 3, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

April 1, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

March 30, 2015

Assessed

March 27, 2015

Assessed

March 26, 2015

Reassessed

  • It Takes a Family (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

March 25, 2015

Reassessed

March 23, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

March 21, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

March 20, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

March 16, 2015

Assessed

March 14, 2015

Renamed

Assessed

March 13, 2015

Renamed

Assessed

March 12, 2015

Renamed

Assessed

March 10, 2015

Renamed

Assessed

Removed

March 9, 2015

Reassessed

  • T. D. Jakes (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Removed

March 6, 2015

Reassessed

  • Robert Kagan (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

March 4, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

  • M. Stanton Evans (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

March 3, 2015

Reassessed

  • Manuel Bulnes (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

March 2, 2015

Reassessed

February 28, 2015

Reassessed

  • Kathryn Jean Lopez (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

February 27, 2015

Removed

  • Tom Jenney (talk) removed. Quality rating was Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

February 26, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

  • Tom Jenney (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

February 24, 2015

Reassessed

  • Generation Zero (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class (rev · t).
  • Shine TV (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Disambig-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to NA-Class (rev · t).

February 23, 2015

Renamed

Assessed

  • Joe Pags (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

February 22, 2015

Renamed

Assessed

Removed

February 21, 2015

Renamed

Assessed

February 20, 2015

Reassessed

February 19, 2015

Assessed

February 18, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

February 17, 2015

Reassessed

  • American Life League (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

February 16, 2015

Renamed

Assessed

  • IHeartMedia (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Mid-Class (rev · t).

February 15, 2015

Reassessed

  • Bonapartism (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

February 14, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

  • Rob Muldoon (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

Removed

  • Rand Paul (talk) removed. Quality rating was GA-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Mid-Class (rev · t).

February 13, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

February 12, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

  • Alan Jilka (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • David Quinn (columnist) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

February 10, 2015

Reassessed

  • Cal Thomas (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).
  • DonorsTrust (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

February 9, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

February 8, 2015

Renamed

Assessed

February 7, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

February 6, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

February 5, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

  • Negro Republican Party (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

February 4, 2015

Reassessed

February 3, 2015

Reassessed

February 2, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

January 31, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

January 29, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

January 28, 2015

Assessed

Requests for Comment


Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

The Question

Should this article contain the following line or a similar piece of information under the Political Activity subsection;

Singer has an account with Donors Trust, a conservative donor advised fund.(ref)

Source:

Abowd, Paul (February 14, 2013). "Koch-funded charity passes money to free-market think tanks in states". NBC News. Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved March 10, 2015.

Source reliable as per consensus at RSN discussion. Source stable at target article and in other articles.

Background and Summary of Arguments

There has been an extended debate regarding the appropriateness of including the line above in this article. Former conversations on this topic can be found at: Talk:Paul_Singer_(businessman)#Donors_Trust and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Column_on_Donors_Trust_on_.28but_not_by.29_NBC.

The main arguments which support inclusion have been;

  1. The information is verifiable
  2. The information is relevant to Singer's political activities

The main arguments which oppose inclusion have been;

  1. Having "an account" is ambiguous, and it's impossible to know if it's relevant to political activities
  2. The information simply isn't notable and shouldn't be included

Format of Responses

Please format your responses as follow -

Talk:Daniel Kawczynski

See above for context, and for those of you not in the UK, remember there's an election campaign going on here :-) Dtellett (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Campus rape

In a new section I wrote, I started with coverage of two women who made statements to the media about their bad experiences with campus judicial processes, and also included a second paragraph, with citations, from the men's point of view. A couple of editors have reverted the second paragraph arguing either BLP concerns [1], or too much detail [2].

Does the deleted paragraph either violate BLP guidelines or have too much detail in part or in it's entirety? Mattnad (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mike Huckabee presidential campaign, 2016

Howdy.

So I have had nothing but trouble trying to get this article going. I asked to have a discussion on the tp before further action was taken, but that was ignored so I'll do it. Looking at WP:TOOSOON, the article does meet the necessary requirements. It has been widely covered by the media, there is an event being planned and Huckabee is certainly a notable guy. I think this is more a matter of WP:ITJ- the article is a stub (and it's difficult to lengthen it when it's constantly being sent back to a revert) and it certainly needs improvement prior to the announcement. But I don't think we would have to have the discussion if the article were longer. The next relevant policy, WP:UPANDCOMING, also does not count for this article. I'm not saying "this will be a big thing"- it is a big thing. And, yeah, if we delete it now, we WILL absolutely, without a doubt need to bring it back in about 2 weeks, but there is more to it. We will be missing out on a good deal of important coverage. We also need to consider what we've done in the past. With both Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio, we created articles almost as soon as word of announcement came and there were already pretty large articles before the announcement. There were well-viewed and it was important to have that foundation.

Finally, I would like to apologize. Without realizing it, I broke the WP:3RR. I didn't think about it until I looked at the article's history just now. Now, all of everything considered, what should we do? Should we keep the article or redirect? PrairieKid (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Genocides in history

I propose that this article should contain its own inclusion criteria, like those in

to inform and guide new editors who may not be familiar with the three content policies and how the content policies affect selection of events for inclusion in this article. -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:World War I infobox

Should the Emirate of Jabal Shammar be included in the infobox as a co-belligerent of the Central Powers? Srnec (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Aaron Schock

After the consensus in #Schock's sexuality agreed to not include gay rumours one year ago, the detail was added as the following mere sentence: "Schock was the subject of persistent gay rumors in the media, which he repeatedly addressed with vigorous denials." It is cited with three sources. Re-inclusion of a detail with one mere sentence might have been motivated by the subject's resignation. Shall such re-inclusion be allowed even after consensus was against the re-inclusion? --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth Warren

There is dispute over what, and how much coverage, about an election controversy there should be in this BLP article (rather than the article on the election itself.). See the ongoing discussion above (and in the archives) that has been carrying on for some months.

Please give your opinion and comments on: Which version if any should be on this page? How long should the section be? LK (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Dragoon Ride

Background: The following line is among various recent, substantially similar, additions to this article:
The opponents were, however, largely outnumbered by supporters of the march, despite contradictory reports the Kremlin-financed news websites and other media brought to the public.

The line in question, declaring the "opponents were ... outnumbered ... despite contradictory reports the Kremlin-financed news websites" is, ironically, sourced to a U.S. Goverment-financed news website, Radio Free Europe, [[3]] The deleted line (which I've replaced), indicating there were an equal number of pro- and anti-protestors is sourced to the Prague Post [4] which, TTBOMK, is not "Kremlin-financed."

  • Here is version 1 of this part of the article (NPOV version): [5]
  • Here is version 2 of this part of the article (U.S. Government version): [6]

Questions for Comment: (a) In articles about protests against a government or regime, should official declarations from the regime itself minimizing the size or motivation of the protests be elevated to statements of fact on WP when neutral RS indicate something substantially different? (b) Which version of the article is a better encapsulation of events? BlueSalix (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)

What should the film be described as:
  1. documentary-style film
  2. documentary style film
  3. documentary film
  4. something else

Comment a documentary, even if it is poorly made, incorrect, false and misleading is still a documentary. Starting to call certain films documentary-style could lead to a debate on every documentary article about whether it is a documentary or documentary-style. Tagging style on the end doesn't describe in what way it differs from a regular documentary. The following sources categorise it as a documentary NYTimes The Hindu IMDB. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Nazi gun control theory

The issue is whether the hatnote is improper in its current form.Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Minority language

Context:

Some countries recognize some languages of traditional minority ethnic communities as co-official languages. This status generally includes right to equal use of some language at local/regional/state level plus public authorities and governments use minority language in equal scope in its work (documents, road signs, other materials...). You might take a look at these article: European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages... Question: I recently had an editorial conflict regarding the addition of minority languages names into articles about municipalities that officially introduced minority co-official language. My idea is that when there are sources that certain (local) government had introduced additional minority coofficial language, we should add name of that village or town in minority language in article lead section, infobox and name/language section if there is one. Is there a common Wikipedia practice in such cases and if there is not what is your opinion as members of Wikipedia community?--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

User:Nanshu has labeled File:Flag of Ryukyu.svg as a Wikipedia hoax, however he then provided three sources (from 1854, 1873, and one around the beginning of the Meiji period) that prove that the flag wasn't just made up by some random editor. He has now gone through multitudes of articles and a template with the sole edit summary of "DEL Wikipedia hoax". Even though this flag has been recorded 261 years ago as the "Ryukyu Kingdom flag", is it a "Wikipedia hoax" or should its use be restored where it was removed? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers

Should the West Bank be described as "occupied" in the lead? Kingsindian  08:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration

There is List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel and there is List of Israeli attacks on the Gaza strip. There are other similar lists and separate articles on different violent (or otherwise related to conflict) events.

This structure doesn't let one track the connection between the separate events. Often an action by one side is declared to be a reaction to an action by the other side, and when we list them separately it's hard to provide the context.

One solution is to add context for each of the attacks on their own articles/lists - but it would cause repetition and allow for WP:POVFORKs, since the same event can be described differently in different articles. Another solution that I'm considering is to merge these lists and split them by time rather than by side - so there is a timeline article for each year, listing all the major events in that year in the order they happened, noting when one event was declared to be caused by another (by either side or by outside analysts) , wikilinking to complete articles when they exist.

What do you think ?WarKosign 06:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Capital accumulation

Should this page redirect to Capitalism#Capital accumulation? Jonpatterns (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:History of economic thought

@I dream of horses, Byronmercury, Amatulic, Hugetim, Warko, Unbuttered Parsnip, and Y-S.Ko: How to improve article navigation, what to remove and what to keep?

I have brought this to RfC because I think we need a methodical way to improve the navigation of the article. Ways of improving navigation include-

  • Removal of sections
  • Making sections more concise
  • Grouping sections into general themes (currently there are about 42 main headings in the article)

If we are removing and grouping its good to use references to guide us. I've found two candidates, are there any others?



  • An Outline of the History of Economic Thought (book)


These refs can act as a guide as to what to put in (or not), as well as a guide on how to structure the article. What are peoples thoughts? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Rfc/testcases

Template:Rfc/testcases

Talk:Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department


For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every hour by Legobot.

Deletion discussions


Conservatism

New articles

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2015-04-20 19:07 (UTC)















Other listings

Cleanup listing
Popular pages
Top edits watchlist
Hot Articles list (Top 20)

Related projects

WikiProject Conservatism is one of the Politics WikiProjects.

General Politics | Biography: Politics and government | Elections and Referendums | Law | Money and politics | Political parties | Voting Systems
Political culture Anarchism | Corporatism | Fascism | Oligarchy | Liberalism | Socialism
Social and political Conservatism | Capitalism | Libertarianism
Regional and national Australia | China | India | Japan | South Korea | New Zealand | Pakistan | United Kingdom | UK Parliament constituencies | US Congress | U.S. Supreme Court Cases

External links

  • This project on Commons Commons-logo.svg COM