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 you can do:
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

Articles for deletion
Good article nominees
Requests for comments

Assessment log

July 9, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

July 8, 2014

Reassessed

July 7, 2014

Reassessed

July 6, 2014

Assessed

  • OANN (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Redirect-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as NA-Class (rev · t).

July 5, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

  • Lee Yancey (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

July 4, 2014

Reassessed

  • Reince Priebus (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

July 3, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

July 2, 2014

Reassessed

  • Trey Gowdy (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

Removed

July 1, 2014

Reassessed

  • Ted Baehr (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

June 30, 2014

Removed

June 28, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

June 26, 2014

Reassessed

  • Pam Bondi (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

June 25, 2014

Assessed

June 24, 2014

Reassessed

  • Bob Hope (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

June 23, 2014

Reassessed

  • Ron Manners (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Mid-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

June 21, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

June 20, 2014

Assessed

June 19, 2014

Assessed

  • Dave Brat (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

June 18, 2014

Reassessed

June 17, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

June 15, 2014

Reassessed

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

June 14, 2014

Assessed

June 12, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

  • Mayday PAC (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Scott Esk (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

June 11, 2014

Renamed

June 10, 2014

Removed

June 9, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

June 8, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

Removed

June 7, 2014

Reassessed

  • Ben Carson (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

June 5, 2014

Assessed

June 4, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

June 3, 2014

Assessed

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

June 2, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

June 1, 2014

Reassessed

May 31, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

May 29, 2014

Removed

  • Aiden (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

May 28, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

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

Assessed

May 27, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

May 26, 2014

Removed

May 25, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

May 22, 2014

Assessed

May 21, 2014

Reassessed

May 20, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

Removed

May 18, 2014

Reassessed

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

Removed

May 17, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

  • Frank Pavone (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

May 15, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

May 6, 2014

Assessed

Removed

April 30, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

April 29, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

April 26, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

April 25, 2014

Reassessed

April 24, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

April 23, 2014

Assessed

April 22, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

April 21, 2014

Reassessed

Removed

April 18, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

April 17, 2014

Reassessed

April 16, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

April 15, 2014

Removed

April 13, 2014

Reassessed

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

April 11, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

April 10, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

April 9, 2014

Assessed

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

April 7, 2014

Reassessed

April 4, 2014

Reassessed

April 2, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

April 1, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

March 30, 2014

Assessed

March 29, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

March 28, 2014

Reassessed

March 27, 2014

Renamed

March 25, 2014

Reassessed

March 23, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

  • REAL Women of Canada (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • Yelena Mizulina (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

March 16, 2014

Renamed

Removed

March 14, 2014

Removed

March 13, 2014

Assessed

March 12, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

March 11, 2014

Renamed

March 10, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

March 8, 2014

Reassessed

  • James Cleverly (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 6, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

March 5, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

March 3, 2014

Reassessed

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

Requests for Comment


Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

As from the several sections above there has been some debate and discussion over whether the Green party along with others should be added to the table of polling results as a 'main party' (i.e. not listed under the 'others' section). Both sides feel as though Wikipedia policies and guidelines support their side and I feel as though we need some input from an outside, impartial source in order to come to a valid conclusion as neither side wishes to budge and there seems to be no in-between option for us to come to a compromise we are both happy with. CH7i5 (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:United States Senate election in Maine, 2014

Should election articles have links to the campaign websites of the candidates involved? 331dot (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement

Should the material sourced to Goldberg's article be edited to note the linkage between the movement and what she is saying about the movie?

Survey

  • Yes The material in question was copied from the movie article with no changes. As such, the material says many things about the movie but does not indicate a direct connection to any specific criticism of the movement. If the source makes a connection then that connection should be noted in this article within reason. Best practice would be to start from scratch in writing material based off the Goldberg source rather than trying to fashion material originally written about the movie into material about the movement.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Steven Emerson

Do you support or oppose the above proposed merger of Investigative Project on Terrorism with Steven Emerson and Why?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan {{rfcquote|text= Considering developments in Iraq over the past months, I would herewith like to make this RfC regarding adding Iraqi Kurdistan to template:Asia topic under the section of "other Dependent territories". This is the second RFC on this topic, with first RfC issued on 20 October and closed 26 November 2013 with a "no consensus" outcome, see discussion from 2013. In the meanwhile, i would like to point out that Iraqi Kurdistan came into media attention and is referred as a notable case of exceptional autonomy, with high level of self-rule bound in Iraqi constitution, and hence is somewhat similar to Hong-Kong and Macau - Special Administrative Regions of China. Here are my reasonings:

  • Iraqi Kurdistan holds separate national symbols and a separate autonomous parliament and government (see [[1] KRG website]), not subject to direct Iraqi Federal control (see "Independent" article from 24.06.2014).
  • The legitimacy of separate Iraqi Kurdistan's government (the KRG) is bound in the 2005 Iraqi transition law in article 53 - "(A) The Kurdistan Regional Government is recognized as the official government of the territories that were administered by the that government on 19 March 2003 in the governorates of Dohuk, Arbil, Sulaimaniya, Kirkuk, Diyala and Neneveh. The term “Kurdistan Regional Government” shall refer to the Kurdistan National Assembly, the Kurdistan Council of Ministers, and the regional judicial authority in the Kurdistan region." [2].
  • Iraqi Kurdistan is a de-facto economically sustainable entity (though officially still under the scope of Federal Iraq), with the completion and operation of Kurdish-Turkish oil pipeline by early 2014 and construction of international airport in Arbil back in 2005. For several months already the Kurds operate without Federal funding.
  • Kurdish region security is entirely out of Federal Iraqi control and KRG effectively controls borders and internal order by Peshmerga forces (see CNN from 28.06.2014).
  • There are academic assessments of Iraqi Kurdistan as a "largely autonomous federal state within Iraq" (for example see review by Johns Hopkins University).
  • Kurdish region is widely referred by the media as an exceptional case of autonomy, referring to ""Kurdish autonomy" or "Kurdistan region" see The Economist,The Independent,Inquirer,Reuters.

I welcome other users to comment and emphasize that we are not talking about any form of independence of the Kurdish region in Iraq at this point (there is no independence), but about a case of exceptional autonomy.GreyShark (dibra) 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)}} Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal

Should the following content be included in this article?
Probes sparked by the lane closures are probing funding of the Pulaski Skyway

The lane-closure scandal also sparked inquiries by the Manhattan District Attorney's office and the U,S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC and Manhattan DA probes are focusing on the Pulaski Skyway, an elevated highway linking Newark and Jersey City. On June 23, 2014, The New York Times reported that the inquiries are focusing on possible securities law violations caused by Christie's use of Port Authority funds to pay for repairs to the Skyway in 2010 and 2011, using money that was to be used on a new Hudson River rail tunnel that Christie canceled in October 2010. The Times reported that use of the funds for the Skyway was opposed by Port Authority lawyers, and that investigators are focusing on possible mischaracterization of the Skyway project in Port Authority bond documents. Investigators are examining possible criminal violations of New York's Martin Act, as well as civil violations of the Act and federal securities laws. [1]

The Times reported that Jeffrey Chiesa, a close friend of Christie's and former New Jersey attorney general, was among the people who had been subpoenaed by the Manhattan District Attorney, but that he is not a target of the investigation. He was Christie's chief of staff when the bond documents were changed to include questionable language referring to the Skyway.[1]

Christie has expressed confidence that the SEC would find no wrongdoing in the financing of the Skyway project.[2]

CFredkin (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Great power

is India referred to as a great power? and should it be included in the section "Aftermath of the Cold War" thought it already is icluding in the next section below "Emerging powers" 108.60.134.235 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland

Whether the Category:North Tipperary and Category:South Tipperary and all their sub-cateogries ought to be de-populated and made into re-directs to Category:County Tipperary and its sub-cateogries. Whether the two categories are still notable, historical entities or may be entirely deprecated. Whether articles that formerly reported solely to one of the two categories (before their de-population)ought to have a double parentage to one of the two categories, as relevant, and County Tipperary. Question for voting purposes: Should Category:North Tipperary and Category:South Tipperary be retained, and relevant articles have double parentage? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox

Should the template {{s-prec|usa}} be included in the USRepSuccessionBox? The template can be used to add a seniority box at the bottom of the USRepSuccessionBox, such that the ceremonial seniority of a US congressperson is shown flanked by a "preceded by" person and a "succeeded by" person. Such an addition can be seen in this recent edit to the biography of Representative Barbara Lee. See Template:S-prec#With_parameter for context. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Category talk:Antisemitism

Should Category:Antisemitism and its various subcategories, per this 2011 CFD, continue to include the language that "It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic" despite the reality that it does, in practice, include individuals and groups that are, per WP:V and WP:RS, allegedly antisemitic? -- Kendrick7talk 05:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kenji Miyazawa

This figure was a member of the religio-political group Kokuchūkai, which was founded by the nationalist Chigaku Tanaka. Very few sources independently refer to Kenji as a nationalist. Should the article refer to him as a nationalist? 182.249.240.43 (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:YesAllWomen

Original RFC statement

Should we disclose the gender breakdown of the deaths and wounded (if it ever comes out)? The article was edited to give thorough detail on each death, and a resulting heated discussion ensued, including whether to include a gendered breakdown in any instance. Also in dispute is whether to include thorough context on each death as a result of the gendered breakdown. Tutelary (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Shock Doctrine

[3] claims to present a synopsis of the book discussed. WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article states "While longer descriptions may appear to provide more data to the reader, a more concise summary may in fact be more informative as it highlights the most important elements." Does the shorter version accurately synopsize the book? 17:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

A number of editors have been asserting on thread at RS/N that Russia Today and the Voice of Russia, which are owned or operated by the government of Russia are not RS in an attempt to make a blanket dismissal of the source, preventing its use on Wikipedia for any purpose.

In light of the sprawling thread at the RS/N Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Russia_Today, which appears to involve a lot of contentious assertions not related to the Guideline, it seems that an RfC is needed to prevent the consensus building procedure at RS/N from being impeded for the same reasons.

Aside from the general section on News organizations, the section on Biased or opinionated sources

Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

the section on Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

and the section on Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

Biased or opinionated sources
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

would seem to be relevant passages from the Guideline to this RfC.

It has been established, for example, that RT has a well-established reputation for fact checking on a par with many RS news organizations, and the opposite having no editorial control, the claim is that they have excessive editorial control, making them biased.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 00:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth II

Which of the following should be used as the first sentence in the lead?
  1. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom and of fifteen other independent nations, Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
  2. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of sixteen realms of the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations (the "Commonwealth"). She is also the head of the Commonwealth, and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
  3. [Other]

TFD (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dave Brat

Should the line Brat attributed this electoral victory to God, who he said “acted through people on my behalf.” be removed from the section "Republican Primary?" For ease of bookkeeping, please use the discussion section for prolonged discussion, and keep your opinions succinct and correctly placed in support/oppose.

Support deletion

  • Support After having reviewed the bios for every sitting member of the U.S. Congress from Virginia, as well as a random selection of other members of congress, I can find no evidence of precedent for including summaries of their victory speeches in the electoral history sections, despite - in several instances - a preponderance of RS coverage of such content in the 72 hours after election day. While breaking with precedent might be fine in the case of a truly outlandish or unusual statement in a victory speech, American politicians, celebrities, and sports figures seem to typically invoke a variety of religious declarations in their victory, concession, and apology speeches. Finding wide coverage of a victory speech in the 72 hours after election is unremarkable and this line will not stand the test of trivia/non-trivia two years from now. BlueSalix (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

Are newspaper headlines, in themselves, a "reliable source" as absolutely usable as the publication they appear in? 23:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pune techie murder case

There is an incident of hate SMS circulated among the alleged perpetrators reported by several mainstream media like OneIndia, Hindustan Times, Caravan magazine, CNN-IBN, ABP [4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11], [12],[13],[14],[15] etc. I added it here[16] but removed here[17] as undue weight but I believe not as it made headlines itself so seeking for a resolution via RFC. Edmondhills (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mexico

The purpose of this RfC is to establish what weight if any should be assigned to the source "Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI" by Francisco Lizcano Fernandez, and how it should be represented.

Discussion

  • This souce should have no weight in this general article about Mexico, or in the section about Mexican Demography. The article is not frequently cited in the literature on Mexican work about Mexico. It is cited in a few specialized studies on racial demography, because it is the only source that provides numbers for the relative percentages of "europeans", "indians" and "mixed" populations - for this reason it may be relevant to cite the article in the specialized article about Mexican demography. Its claims about the ethnic composition of Latin American are contradicted by most mainstream sources on Mexican anthropology which do not consider "Latin", "Iberian", "creole", "garifuna" or "indigena" (groups that are based on the colonial casta system of racial classification) to be valid ethnic groups (with the exception of Garifuna which is however used in a different sense by Lizcano to refer not to the Garifuna indigenous group but to populations with mixed African-Indigenous biological ancestry). If it were to be included it would require several lines of explanation of the position of this study in relation to mainstream views in order not to misinform the reader. Furthermore the attempt to use the source for claims about the number of "white people" in Mexico are based on misrepresenting the source which does not claim to give this figure, only to give a figure for people with Iberian or Indoeuropean ancestry, which in fact states specifically does not equate "white" in the Latin American context.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Rfc/testcases

Template:Rfc/testcases

Request board

This is a human-edited list of requests for comment. Click here to add a new request.


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

Template:Scroll box

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

Directory Directory of WikiProjects

 

Council WikiProject Council

 

Guide Guide to WikiProjects

  1. ^ a b Flegenheimer, Matt; Rashbaum, William K.; Zernike, Kate (June 23, 2014). "2nd Bridge Inquiry Said to Be Linked to Christie". The New York Times. Retrieved June 24, 2014. 
  2. ^ Isherwood, Darryl (April 29, 2014). "Christie confident SEC will find no issue with Pulaski funding". NJ.com. Retrieved 2014-06-24.