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

Proposed deletions
Good article nominees
Requests for comments
Peer reviews
Requested moves

Assessment log

January 29, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

January 28, 2015

Assessed

January 27, 2015

Renamed

Assessed

January 26, 2015

Removed

January 25, 2015

Reassessed

January 24, 2015

Removed

January 23, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

January 20, 2015

Reassessed

January 19, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

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

January 18, 2015

Reassessed

January 17, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

January 16, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

January 15, 2015

Assessed

January 14, 2015

Assessed

January 13, 2015

Assessed

January 12, 2015

Reassessed

January 10, 2015

Renamed

Assessed

January 8, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

January 5, 2015

Reassessed

  • Shannon Grove (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t).

January 4, 2015

Assessed

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

December 31, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

December 30, 2014

Removed

December 29, 2014

Assessed

December 28, 2014

Reassessed

  • Conservative-Monarchist Club (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • Gay Republicans (film) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • Mary Matalin (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

December 27, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

December 25, 2014

Removed

December 22, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

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

December 21, 2014

Reassessed

December 19, 2014

Reassessed

Removed

December 16, 2014

Assessed

December 14, 2014

Assessed

December 13, 2014

Reassessed

December 12, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

December 9, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

December 8, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

December 7, 2014

Reassessed

  • Bill Cassidy (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).

December 6, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

  • Atassut (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

December 3, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

December 2, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

December 1, 2014

Reassessed

  • La Gaceta (Spain) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).
  • Virginity pledge (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

November 29, 2014

Assessed

November 28, 2014

Reassessed

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

November 27, 2014

Reassessed

  • The Washington Times (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).

November 25, 2014

Assessed

November 20, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

November 17, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

November 15, 2014

Reassessed

November 15, 2014

Reassessed

November 13, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

  • Shine TV (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to NA-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

November 11, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

November 6, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

November 5, 2014

Assessed

November 4, 2014

Assessed

November 1, 2014

Reassessed

October 31, 2014

Reassessed

October 30, 2014

Assessed

October 29, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

October 27, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

October 26, 2014

Assessed

October 25, 2014

Assessed

October 24, 2014

Assessed

October 27, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

October 26, 2014

Assessed

October 25, 2014

Assessed

October 24, 2014

Assessed

October 23, 2014

Reassessed

  • Alan Sears (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • McCarthyism (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Mid-Class to High-Class (rev · t).

October 21, 2014

Assessed

October 20, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

Removed

October 19, 2014

Reassessed

Removed

October 18, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

October 17, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

October 16, 2014

Assessed

October 14, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

October 13, 2014

Assessed

Requests for Comment


Talk:Head of state

What should caption the image of Queen Elizabeth II in the "Standard model" section of this article? 01:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Abraham Lincoln

Does the current discussion of Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension (Abraham_Lincoln#Beginning_of_the_war) have the right balance of detail? Is it fair? Biased? Piledhighandeep (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gun show loophole

Should the article be renamed, from "Gun show loophole" to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States"? The discussion concerns the Neutral Point Of View policy. Previous discussions are above. Mudwater (Talk) 01:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:No-go area

Should the "Allegations about Europe" section contain background information on the use of the term "no-go zones" and/or "zone de non-droit" in 2002, 2005 and 2012, as removed by this edit? — Brianhe (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:American Left

Is Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont, previously U.S. Representative from Vermont, previously mayor of Burlington, Vermont, a notable enough person (as an American socialist politician) to be mentioned in the article American Left in a section entitled "Left candidates running as independents"? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Human rights in Northern Cyprus

Should content based entirely on the 1994 CERD report be included in the article? --GGT (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes

This article specifies:
This list consists of American politicians convicted of crimes either committed or prosecuted while holding office in the federal government. It includes politicians who were convicted or pleaded guilty in a court of law; and does not include politicians involved in unprosecuted scandals (which may or may not have been illegal in nature), or politicians who have only been arrested or indicted. The list also does not include crimes which occur outside the politician’s tenure unless they specifically stem from acts while they were in office.

Was Spiro Agnew convicted while in Federal office or prosecuted while in Federal office for "acts committed while (he) was in office"? 23:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Grimm (politician)

In early 2014, Grimm threatened a reporter by saying, "If you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this fucking balcony" (source -- and of course there are many others). In reporting on this incident here, should we quote Grimm or paraphrase him? 14:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Israel

UN "Sketch map" of the "plan on partition" between an Arab State, pink, and a Jewish State, green
Israel's 1949 Green Line (dark green) and demilitarized zones (light green)

What borders should be used as base for information presentation on Israel: the UN arranged borders of 1947, the Green Line borders of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the borders to which Israel established military control in areas named the West Bank, the Golan Heights and (possibly) Gaza or another option?

It is proposed that Wikipedia should present clear border defined content related to its presentation and that the article should not include some information and images from within one border defined area while discounting other information from within the same border defined area.

I think that it also needs to be decided/clarified which description of borders are to be used and to what extent reference should be made to other borders.

Parameters of the 1949 Armistice Agreements
I think that it should be noted that Armistice Demarcation Lines do not change borders. As noted by another editor in another discussion, the Armistice Agreements specifically say;

Egypt/Israel - Article 4. 3. "It is emphasized that it is not the purpose of this Agreement to establish, to recognize, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests which may be asserted by either Party in the area of Palestine or any part or locality thereof covered by this Agreement, whether such asserted rights, claims or interests derive from Security Council resolutions, including the resolution of 4 November 1948 and the Memorandum of 13 November 1948 for its implementation, or from any other source. The provisions of this Agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations and are valid only for the period of the Armistice." [1]
Lebanon/Israel - Art 2. 2. "(a) The provisions of this agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations."[2]
Syria/Israel - Art 2. 2. "It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military and not by political considerations."[3]
Jordan/Israel - Art 2. "2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.[4]

GregKaye 13:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Arab Winter

Now that the table is removed, is there a point on keeping the article as "Arab Winter" anymore? There is no consensus to merge, but the article still has potential. --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Chris Kyle

Judging from the above sections, I think the questions boil down to these:

- Does WP:BLP still apply to this article?
- Multiple editors have removed information from reliable sources which was critical of Chris Kyle. Is this a violation of WP:NPOV?
- It is clear that information is emerging in news, media etc. that not everyone sees Chris Kyle, his words and/or his actions in a positive light. What are your suggestions to handle such information moving forward?

Please keep it clean, constructive and no personal attacks(you know who you are). Myopia123 (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Prostitution in Canada

Should the organization subsections be renamed to something more neutral and accurate, such as "pro-legalization" and "pro-prohibition"? Haminoon (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Half-mast

The list of tragedies in the bullet point that states "when a president proclaims it" is too large, as 1). the list is overly long as is and is just going to get inevitably larger, and 2). it states "such as", as in "a few examples"; the list instead lists every single major tragedy in America since the early 2000s. I suggest shortening the list, maybe to about 2-4 tragedies.

This entire page could also be cleaned up and consitenized, by the way. Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 04:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:American socialism

The section as it stands right now is useless. It seems to have all the disadvantages of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and none of the benefits. It is much too long, unmanageable, and disoriented. Some editors seem to think that anyone who had some ties to socialism and living in America warrants their name being included, I personally do not think that this is helpful to anyone. It seems to be subject to the whim of a few editors (myself included) in regards to who/what should be included. I suggest that we do away with all the names and maybe start it off it off with just a few names that are not controversial and build from there, requiring consensus for the added names to avoid any POV pushing or agenda driven additions. I also believe that maybe we should do a request for comment or seek a third party perspective? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Campus rape

A new editor has been making wholesale changes to the Campus rape article. As part the editors approach, the editor has chosen to de-emphasize current US government surveys and statistics, including a very recent Department of Justice report and give equal footing to studies that sometimes older, less rigorous, narrower in sample quality, or less well known.

Here's a comparison between the previous approach which was very specific, and the current favored by the recent editor.

Given there is a lot of debate between which statistics to present, should we emphasize recent, government statistics on the problem, or treat any and all studies or conclusions equally (regardless of quality, age, scope) as is being done in the current article.15:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting

How much and what kind of background information should be in this article? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Creation–evolution controversy

This article is about the evolution-creation controversy. A previous RfP by Cposper regarding this one sentence edit [5]had mixed reactions, with most negative comments suggesting that more sources than the two clearly one-sided sources cited by Cposper were needed. See for example AndytheGrump's comments[6][7]

My proposed section, copied below, attempts to address the deficiencies of Cposper's contribution using 14 reliable sources on both sides of the controversy. The outline is simple. The first paragraph affirms the overwhelming support for evolution in academia. The second paragraph cites sources asserting discrimination against academics expressing any doubts, the third paragraph cites sources asserting the claim of discrimination is false and/or exaggerated.

Personally, I'm not a creationist. I only came to this article because of Cposper's RfC with a desire to encourage the process described in WP:PRESERVE, trying to build rather than block it. I have persisted on this talk page and through this RfC because I put effort into my original contribution and believe opposition to it, is totally contrary to WP:PRESERVE and represents problems with ownership sentiments that discourage new editors.

My addition:

===Appeals to Scientific Consensus'
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[1][2][3][4][5] (See Level of support for evolution.)
This consensus is so embedded in academia that some critics believe it has created a chilling effect on scientists who might raise questions regarding the adequacy of evolutionary theory.[6] For example, sociologist Rodney Stark has also asserted that a "fear of censure"[7] exists such that any questions regarding the adequacy of evolution may be perceived as support for creationism.[8] In Ben Stein's much publicized documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed the alleged discrimination against scientists who question evolution theory is presented as a major obstacle to serious engagement with the theory of Intelligent design. In the film, Stein interviewed several academics, including biologist Richard Sternberg, and astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez, who claimed, according to the Toledo Blade that "their careers were derailed for failing to follow the party line on evolution."[6] Similarly, Jerry Bergman claims he has documented hundreds of cases of scientists "whose careers have been capsized for doubting Darwin." [6][9]
The claim that academics are systematically punished for voicing doubts about evolution has been dismissed and refuted by many leading scientists and organizations.[10][11] In response to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the National Center for Science Education created a Expelled Exposed[12], a website with multiple resources criticizing the film including expanded biographical material on each of the six academics interviewed in the film who alleged that they had been discriminated against because of their views. Similarly, an article in Scientific American asserts that Stein provided only a "selective retelling" of Richard Sternberg's role with the Smithsonian Institution. The film failed to disclose, for example, that Sternberg's departure was planned before the controversy erupted over his decision to publish a paper on paper intelligent design by Steven Meyer.[13] Stein's assertion of widespread prejudice against scientists who hold religious beliefs was also dismissed by examples of the "[t]housands of other biologists across the U.S. who all know evolution to be true also still religious."[13] In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of scientists argued that the claim that “persecuted scientist against the establishment” allegation made by creationists is a "hoax.".[14]
References
  1. ^ Myers, PZ (2006-06-18). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?". Pharyngula (scienceblogs.com). Retrieved 2006-11-18. 
  2. ^ The National Science Teachers Association's position statement on the teaching of evolution.
  3. ^ IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
  4. ^ From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
  5. ^ Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human Evolution, Alan J. Almquist, John E. Cronin, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 520–522
  6. ^ a b c Yonke, David (2008-04-28). "Expelled: Intelligent design film fuels debate over how life came to be". Toledo Blade. Retrieved 7 January 2014. 
  7. ^ Stark, Rodney (September 2004). "Fact, Fable, and Darwin". One America. Retrieved 31 December 2014. Popper's tribulations illustrate an important basis for the victory of Darwinism: A successful appeal for a united front on the part of scientists to oppose religious opposition has had the consequence of silencing dissent within the scientific community. The eminent observer Everett Olson notes that there is 'a generally silent group' of biological scientists 'who tend to disagree with much of the current thought' about evolution, but who remain silent for fear of censure. 
  8. ^ Stark, Rodney (2003). For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery. Princeton University Press. p. 176. My reluctance to pursue these matters is based on my experience that nothing causes greater panic among many of my colleagues than any criticism of evolution. They seem to fear that someone might mistake them for Creationists if they even remain in the same room while such talk is going on. 
  9. ^ Jerry Bergman. Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth about Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters, 2nd edition, April 2011, 422 pages, Leafcutter Press.
  10. ^ Jeanette Catsoulis. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008) Movie Review New York Times. April 18, 2008. Accessed Dec. 28, 2014.
  11. ^ Gefter, Amanda (12 April 2008). "Warning! They've Got Designs on You". New Scientist (London, England: Reed Business Information, Ltd.) 198 (2651): 46. Bibcode:2008NewSc.198...46S. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)61555-9. 
  12. ^ "Expelled Exposed". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved December 31, 2014. 
  13. ^ a b Rennie, John; Mirsky, Steve (April 16, 2008). "Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...about intelligent design and evolution". Scientific American. Retrieved December 31, 2014. 
  14. ^ "Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas. A search through PubMed fails to find evidence of their scholarship within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In the original Wedge document, a key part of the plan to displace evolutionary biology was a program of experimental science and publication of the results. That step has evidently been skipped." Attie, A. D.; Sober, E.; Numbers, R. L.; Amasino, R. M.; Cox, B.; Berceau, T.; Powell, T.; Cox, M. M. (2006). "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action" (Full free text). Journal of Clinical Investigation 116 (5): 1134–1138. doi:10.1172/JCI28449. PMC 1451210. PMID 16670753.  edit

Three questions for the RfC:

Q1. Is the above material relevant to the topic, the evolution-creation controversy?

Q2. Keeping in mind that WP:PRESERVE techniques can be used to improve this contribution and further refine the balance and sources, does this contribution and 14 reliable sources provided form a reasonable starting point for refining the contribution in a way that improves the article?

Q3. Does this contribution "actually make the article worse"? -- justifying reversion per Revert only when necessary? See the "Unacceptable reverts" subsection

Please Note: Q3 is framed in the negative, with a NO favoring inclusion of he above contribution. No, No, Yes, opposes inclusion on all grounds. Yes, Yes, No favors inclusion on all three grounds.

Please remember this is not a poll on the validity of the claims of discrimination, much less creationism. It is strictly a poll on whether the proposed content is suitable to the article, supported by reliable sources, and a reasonable first draft to improve the coverage of the subject for our readers.--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Charleston, South Carolina

There has been an ongoing content dispute over the addition to this article of armed forces units and vessels (link to content addition) located in the greater metro area. This issue was previously addressed by Cjmclark a couple years ago an older thread on this page #Air Force and Navy excluded from Armed Services Section.. However, as there were only a handful of participants, and given the current content dispute, I wanted to re-open the discussion.

I have attempted to discuss the issue on the other user's talk page at User talk:Scsu76#Charleston Armed Forces, but they have refused to respond - simply reverting. Their argument seems to be that because the base is called "Joint Base Charleston" (and not "Joint Base North Charleston", nor "Joint Base Charleston Metro Area"), and because Charleston owes its development to the military, that the military section needs to be expanded to cover all military units in the metro area. This despite the fact that most of those units are actually not within the borders of Charleston itself, but instead are located in the greater Charleston, South Carolina metropolitan area, mostly in the cities of North Charleston, South Carolina, Goose Creek, South Carolina, and Hanahan, South Carolina. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mexicans of European descent

This is a two-part RFC about whether two statements should be added to the lede section of the article on Mexicans of European descent. Please insert your Support or Oppose !votes in the Survey sections and leave your comments in the Threaded Discussion sections.

This is the result of a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The two proposed versions can be seen and compared at User:Robert McClenon/Versions of White Mexicans. This RFC is about the inclusion or non-inclusion of language found in one of the two versions and not the other version.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States

There is currently a dichotomy between the number of states where same sex marriage is legal (36) and the number of states listed in the table (37). This is due to the addition of Missouri to the table. Since the table is "States that license same-sex marriage" and the explanatory note says: "This table shows only states that license same-sex marriages or have legalized it. It does not include states that recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions but do not license them" I believe Missouri should be removed from the list until a ruling covering the whole state is put into effect.

Shoeless Ho (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox officeholder

At a previous discussion at Template talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting consensus was established to substitute the word "redistricted" at the predecessor and/or successor parameters in the case of redistricting under the there described circumstances. Although this was not widely implemented, only a micro-fraction of articles were adequated to this new usage, it led to a controversy because the usage in infoboxes subsequently seemed to be out of step with the usage in succession boxes. This was discussed at Template talk:Succession box#RfC without conclusion to date. I have given the whole matter a bit of thought and would like to say the following:
  • Infoboxes are supposed to tell about the history of the subject of the article, in this case, the life of politician.
  • Succession boxes are supposed to tell you about the history of the office.

This shows clearly that both the content and the format of these boxes may very well be quite different, since they serve different purposes. However, some people will always claim that the content should be the same everywhere, which then leads to edit-wars which will flare up again and again and are difficult to resolve. On the other side, in my opinion, to split up the tenures of the congressman (caused by redistricting/renumbering) is out of scope in an infobox. The district number has, under any circumstances, no biographical value at all, and as User:Collect correctly stated, is not used in Congress itself. The district number has encyclopedical value, and serves to compile and maintain complete lists. They are also used to legally describe the district at the election, and serve in the case of sitting congressmen to find info on their current district, by reading articles like New York's 13th congressional district. At these articles a map and info on the present characteristics of the district can be found.

Considering the above, I propose the following:

  1. In the infobox of a US representative, the tenure should not be split if the person has been continuously sitting in Congress, disregarding the redistricted numbers. The predecessor and/or successor should show the actual previous or next officeholder, if the subject defeated/was defeated by the other person, or succeeded/was succeeded without redistricting. In all other cases, the parameter should be omitted. If the representative is still sitting, "currently representing the Xth District" should be added.
  2. Succession boxes shall be used as they are, showing the predecessor and the successor according to the pertaining list of the district as numbered.

See the following examples:

The combination of the info as stated in the proposed new infobox combined with the succession box make two things clear: The representative, Rangel in this example, has been sitting continuously for more than 40 years in Congress, and thus neither did lose an election nor was preceded or succeeded in Congress by anybody except back in 1971 by Powell. The representative's district was apportioned different areas necessarily including his residence, and was numbered differently, usually every 10 years, and for encyclopedic reference a link is given to the list which shows the history of the district as numbered as well as those representatives who used that numbers during their elections before and after the subject of the article. Please comment. Kraxler (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion debate

In order to provide WP:NPOV the section on Pro-Abortion Violence should be included. To say it never happens provides a strong bias making it look as if only Pro-Life Violence is taking place. I think both forms of violence are wrong and simply would like both mentioned for academic and historical purposes on Wikipedia; the article should provide a neutral look at both forms of violence. My attempt of WP:BOLD has been reverted due to an unintended edit war with User:Roscelese suggesting there was not enough Cited sources, no Wikipedia:Reliable sources on the 20 given, and not enough WP:WEIGHT. See also the Revision history . We should attempt to reach a consensus to determine the outcome of this issue and the level of importance on including this information. - Gaming4JC (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:David Kay

This entry requires for a lead section edit. I tried to sum up important key-points. Is it ok to remove the "Lead Section" Template? Dastephi (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown

Which (if any) photo should be used to represent Michael Brown. (multiple preferences are allowed, but note that due to copyright reasons WP:NFCC only one non-free image may be used in the article, so we can't use both.)

I have notified BLP/N about this RFC

Photo Survey

  • headphones & graduation & none (in order of preference) While obviously I reserve judgement for any newly proposed photos that may have issues, I would support both the headphone or graduation photos, but also am ok with no photo. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarianism

Should this article minimize, but not remove, libertarian socialism? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:G. Edward Griffin

Question: is it correct for WP to refer to Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first line in WP's voice, as we dothe article currently does? (based on the sourcing provided here (and in the article if you like), and WP:policies and guidelines (including of course WP:BLP and WP:PSCI))

The lead of the article currently reads (note: quotes add to citations to make this more efficient for editors, and ref 1 removed b/c it was redundant):

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American conspiracy theorist,[1][2][3][4] filmmaker, and author. He is perhaps best known as the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System. He is also known for advocating the scientifically-unsupported view that cancer is a metabolic disease that can be cured by consuming more amygdalin, and for his promotion of the conspiracy theory that scientists and politicians are covering up this cure.

Starting as a child actor for radio, he became an announcer and assistant station director. In the 1960s he began a career of producing documentaries and books on topics like cancer, the historicity of Noah's Ark, and the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court of the United States, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy. Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community.[5][6] He has also promoted the Durupınar site as hosting the original Noah's Ark. He has opposed the Federal Reserve since the 1960s, saying it constitutes a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism.[7]

  1. ^ Easter, Sean (March 26, 2011). "Who is G. Edward Griffin, Beck's Expert on The Federal Reserve? Media Matters for America. Quote: "On his Fox News show, Glenn Beck presented author G. Edward Griffin as a credible authority on the Federal Reserve. But Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories, including the notions that HIV does not exist and that cancer is a dietary deficiency that can be cured with "an essential food compound."" followed by a long list of examples from Griffin's work, including AIDs denial and the belief that the government shot down Flight 93 on 9/11.).
  2. ^ Brendan I. Koerner (2013-06-07). "Skyjacker of the Day". Slate.com. Quote: "Watch his conversation with noted conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin."
  3. ^ McLeod, Kembrew (2014-04-01). "The despicable rise of conservative pranksters: Race-baiting & conspiracy theories in the age of Obama". Slate.com. Quote: "Paul’s endorsement of G. Edward Griffin’s “The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve”—along with several other positions he holds—has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists. Griffin’s book is laced with standard-issue references to the Council on Foreign Relations, W. Cleon Skousen, Carroll Quigley, the Rothschild family, and the Bavarian Illuminati (a branch of which, the author suggests, played a role in assassinating Abraham Lincoln). Griffin was also a longtime affiliate of the John Birch Society, which published several of his nutty books. In Paul’s blurb for “The Creature from Jekyll Island,” he calls it “a superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind.” It sure is. " (NB: The book is all about conspiracy theorists. When the author says "standard issue", he means standard issue conspiracy theories)
  4. ^ London, William M. (2014-11-19). "Untruths About Cancer in the Failed “Quest for Cures” [Part 2]". James Randi Educational Foundation. Quote: "Conspiracy-theorist G. Edward Griffin also asserts that doctors aren’t taught about “natural cures” or nutrition in medical school."
  5. ^ Herbert V (May 1979). "Laetrile: the cult of cyanide. Promoting poison for profit". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 32 (5): 1121–58. PMID 219680
  6. ^ Lerner IJ (February 1984). "The whys of cancer quackery". Cancer 53 (3 Suppl): 815–9. PMID 6362828.
  7. ^ Thomas, Kenn (2002). Popular Paranoia: A Steamshovel Press Anthology. Adventures Unlimited Press. p. 298. ISBN 1-931882-06-1

Other sources for "conspiracy theorist" not cited in our article:

  • Griffin spoke at Conspiracy Con in 2007 on "THE QUIGLY FORMULA (A Conspiratorial View of History)" . Conspiracy Con is what it sounds like.
  • Dana Milbank for the Washington Post. April 6, 2011 Why Glenn Beck lost it quote: quote: "To make this case, Beck hosted the conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin, who has publicly argued that the anti-Semitic tract “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” “accurately describes much of what is happening in our world today.” Griffin’s Web site dabbles in a variety of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including his view that “present-day political Zionists are promoting the New World Order.”"
  • Griffin is featured as the key example in the chapter on Fed conspiracy theories here, in a book called "Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop on Freemasons, the Illmuniati, Skull & Bones, Black Helicopters, the New World Order, and Many, Many More".
  • and Griffin himself talks about the "conspiracy theory" he is advocating - in that language - in his own book here

thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

I am struggling with this article, it has excessive inclusion of information by what other people think about the book, including excessive quotes from everyone who has an opinion to offer. It compromises the quality of the article and the weight of the article. Other opinions would be nice on how to fix, see talk page on text size breakdown and history of objections [8]

[9] [10] [11] [12] Inayity (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Rfc/testcases

Template:Rfc/testcases


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: 2015-01-31 20:08 (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

Directory Directory of WikiProjects

 

Council WikiProject Council

 

Guide Guide to WikiProjects