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
Categories for discussion
Good article nominees
Requests for comments
Requested moves

Assessment log

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

October 12, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

Removed

October 10, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

October 9, 2014

Reassessed

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

Assessed

October 5, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

October 4, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

October 1, 2014

Assessed

September 30, 2014

Reassessed

September 28, 2014

Assessed

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

September 27, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

  • Kōmeito (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Mid-Class (rev · t).

September 26, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

September 25, 2014

Reassessed

September 22, 2014

Assessed

Removed

September 21, 2014

Removed

September 17, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

Removed

September 16, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

September 14, 2014

Assessed

September 11, 2014

Reassessed

  • God and Man at Yale (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to High-Class (rev · t).

September 10, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

September 7, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

September 5, 2014

Reassessed

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

September 4, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

  • Richard Fink (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Mid-Class (rev · t).

September 3, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

September 2, 2014

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

September 1, 2014

Renamed

Assessed

August 31, 2014

Assessed

  • Afzal Amin (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

August 30, 2014

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

Requests for Comment


Talk:9/11 Truth movement

Should the Lead revisit and list out the official 9/11 account going into details when already there is a link to the official 9/11 report which is known to most, constantly in the news. This article is about the movement challenging the official account first and foremost. The movement, not the official account. Suffice to say they challenge the official account.--Inayity (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Creation–evolution controversy

Should the section on public policy include a reference to concerns about the silencing of dissidents? Cpsoper (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Armed Iraqi groups in the Iraq War and the Iraq Civil War

I think that there is a big and confusing overlap in the information in this template between insurgency groups and Militia groups. Editors on Wikipedia I think have fairly argued that insurgent is now a less used than terms like militia and I think that there may be an argument to drop the title insurgent all together. I think that it is also of note that Islamist is a more commonly used term for many of the groups involved than jihadist and perhaps this could be used.

Propose placing all the "insurgents" contents into a unified militia section which could be listed as either "insurgents, militias and others" or just "militias and others" or "militias" or something else. Perhaps a third column of information could be added for each sectarian category as necessary. I would suggest that a division for "Sunni militias" could be presented as either "Pro-government" and "Against government" or by similar wording.

As far as I have seen the war constitutes a conflict in Sunni-Shia relations which has a major overlap as a pro/anti government civil war. I don't think that a distinction between insurgents and militias, if such a thing exists, is helpful.

I have recently placed the insurgent and militia contents together to aide more easy comparison.

GregKaye 11:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her

1. Should content sourced by Media Matters be removed from the article? 2. Should content sourced by Breitbart.com be removed from the article? 3. Should content sourced by Daily Kos be removed from the article? Casprings (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015

The above outlines the arguments presented in this dispute. To state simply a there were deeply contested views as to whether TamilNet was a RS after a Consensus it was established to use "pro-rebel Tamilnet reported..." with citation of TamilNet. obi2canibe states consensus only applies to contentious facts from the Sri Lankan conflict. Here WP:YESPOV applies. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 21:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Rotimi Amaechi

What should the title of this page be? Chibuike Amaechi or Rotimi Amaechi? Stanleytux (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Hamas

I propose to include the following information to the article (see discussion & RS above):
  1. EU's opinion that the Court's decision is procedural only, and "was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group".
  2. Information about the Court's decision to extend for 3 months Hamas funds' blocking to review the results of a possible appeal.
  3. EU continues to consider Hamas as terrorist organization and intends to file such an appeal.

-- Igorp_lj (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Orson Scott Card

Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas

"... Obama will put a thin veneer of training and military structure on urban gangs, and send them out to channel their violence against Obama's enemies. Instead of doing drive-by shootings in their own neighborhoods, these young thugs will do beatings and murders of people 'trying to escape' -- people who all seem to be leaders and members of groups that oppose Obama." --Orson Scott Card link

--as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card#Politics"?

(Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.)

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown

Are viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources about the grand jury proceedings suitable for inclusion if they paint a negative view of the prosecution, or represent biased opinions? - 20:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png

The map image, File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png, is used with the following headings:

  • Controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
  • Controlled by al-Nusra
  • Controlled by other Syrian rebels
  • Controlled by Syrian government
  • Controlled by Iraqi government
  • Controlled by Syrian Kurds
  • Controlled by Iraqi Kurds
  • Disputed territory or Occupied by Israel

The proposal here is to remove reference to Israel and the Golan Heights disputed territory from the map as an irrelevance to the topics within which the map is used.

Please respond with Support or Oppose

I propose that there is no relevance in the inclusion of Israel in the context of the articles in which the map is used. Israel are not one of ISIL's military opponents and they are not amongst the nations that have designated it as a terrorist organisation neither have they been a participant in the war in Iraq and Syria in 2014. If Israel do engage in the war then I think a highlighting of Israel would be fair but until then I think inclusion is questionable. Basically the proposal is that, while there are certainly issues related to the Israeli occupation of regions such as the Golan Heights, these are best covered elsewhere. I have not seen maps in RS publications make reference to Israel and I think that Wikipedia should follow the same lead.

GregKaye 15:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Chawinda

Do you think the statment cited in infobox, "Major pakistani victory" is valid ? Shrikanthv (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Umbrella Movement

I had edited a version of the template after an edit war about a week ago since the edit kept being reverted without any contribution to the discussion for a consensus for the sake of the betterment of this particular template. I am requesting a third party's comment so that this deadlock can be solved with a constructive manner.Lmmnhn (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Governor-General of Australia

This article presently states in the "Constitutional role and functions" section the governor-general exercises only certain powers that are the monarch's and his role as representative of the monarch is "limited". The rest of the section consists of selective quotes intended to support that claim. In light of that:

Is the Governor-General of Australia always the representative of the monarch of Australia and exercises the monarch's executive power sometimes because the constitution says only the governor-general may do so and sometimes because the monarch has stipulated (through letters patent) that the governor-general can?

OR

Is the governor-general sometimes the representative of the monarch of Australia and sometimes another, unnamed form of... chief executive (?), sometimes exercising the monarch's share of the executive power as his or her representative and sometimes exercising the remainder of the executive power given specifically to the governor-general in the constitution?

(Also see: Talk:Australian head of state dispute#The Governor-General's reserve powers, Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 1#The view that the governor-general is the Australian head of state - the Queen's powers, Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 1#Representation, #Reserve powers of the Crown, Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive 3#Representative of the Queen, Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive 1#Current discussion) 01:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geopolitical entities not recognised as states

In this edit I moved the project page with comment added to the edit: Gregkaye moved page Wikipedia:WikiProject Unrecognized countries to Wikipedia:WikiProject geopolitical entities not recognised as states: the project was mis-titled in reference to "Unrecognized countries" as we can't speak in Wikipedia's voice...

Dispute has been raised above to this naming and I would like raise the question of a suitable NPOV wording that might be used. Relevant Wikipedia reference may include:

I found the title declaring "countries" as being existent even before details were mentioned as presenting extreme and POV and not providing a suitable basis for the development of neutral encyclopaedic content. I came up with the best title that I could think of but nothing there is set in stone. It is currently presented as "WikiProject Geopolitical entities not recognised as states". How should the project best be named?

Ping: Rebecca Big Adamsky Charm Quark< koavf Morwen Nightstallion Pascal Pedant Secretlondon UniReb PaxEquilibrium Patricknoddy (talk · contribs) Naruto Arena (talk · contribs) Sahmeditor (talk · contribs) Pocopocopocopoco (talk · contribs) Domino theory Nebraska3 Presidentman (talk · contribs) Xhavnak Phoenix B 1of3 Spesh531 Savissivik

GregKaye 12:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her

Breitbart.com editor-at-large Ben Shapiro in an opinion column at that site stated:
It is absurd to have [leftist] movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.”[1]
  1. Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for that statement?
  2. Is the statement violative of WP:BLP per se? 00:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of cases of police brutality in the United States

The standards for inclusion in this list are not well defined, and in practice exclude many cases that most people would define as "police brutality." The standard should be something like: 1) Cases are cited from unbiased public sources; 2) There should be serious injury to an unarmed citizen by a policeman; 3) The case should be "settled" in the sense that ongoing legal disputes seem to be over; 4) The listing should be fair, listing all important details, such as trial outcomes. Jonawebb (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown

Since the above discussion keeps running around in circles :

The grand jury Controversy section currently* consists of 18 quotes/opinions plus the table.

  • Should we keep quotes, or move to a more prose style summary
    • If kept as quotes, should the number of quotes be reduced
    • Or a summary plus a small number of representative quotes
  • Should the table be kept, or moved into prose

* The current version may differ from the version when this RFC started.

Survey

  • Move most quotes to summary style keeping only most 2-3 most notable/important voices as quotes. Keep table. IF WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is controlling, reduce number of quotes/opinions as currently WP:UNDUE Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:History of India

As per this discussion I am starting this RFC to ask for the rename of this article to History of Indian Subcontinent or redefine the scope of this article as discussed ahead. The article itself states that it covers the history of the subcontinent and the lede even starts that way. Background for the unaware: Indian subcontinent has historically been known as just India but now the primary topic for the word "India" is the Republic of India which already has its history article at History of the Republic of India. See also that the word "India" redirects to Republic of India which means there's consensus for that being the primary topic and that standard should be followed so as not to create confusion (an editor got blocked due to this confusion by trying to make a split at another article discussed later although they were also using their IP and account together as sock to get their work to stick). Renaming this article will not only disambiguate and clarify things further for new editors and more importantly for readers, it will also be more neutral towards the current day Indian Subcontinent (a name by which it is still known as) and towards other countries in this region like Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. Once renamed, the current title can either redirect to this article or be split into a new article if needed to specifically talk about the historical region that encompasses the modern India as compared to the formation and independence of India which can be discussed at History of the Republic of India. A similar split is being made at History of Pakistan to focus on the region historically and for creating History of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to cover the history of country's formation and the 60 years till present.. and this is totally per WP:MOS as the article has grown twice the allowed size and still covering WP:DUE content just in summaries and is agreed upon by editors from all points of view here. This will also make navigation a lot easier (a template can be created if needed to further enhance navigation) and will also be following the same type of categorization and naming for clarity as covered in scholarly works and textbooks. If this article is mainly covering the history of modern India then moving the details related to the Indian subcontinent and its history to Indian subcontinent and redefining the scope of this article.

Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Now that we have Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman article, shall we remove or keep the infoboxes in the "Parties involved" section? --George Ho (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 hostage rescue operations in Yemen

The article "2014 rescue mission in Yemen" had been merged into "2014 hostage rescue operations in Yemen", but it was reverted because the "rescue mission" article went first. Shall the "rescue mission" article be re-redirected to the "hostage rescue operations" article, or shall the "hostage rescue operations" article be merged into the other? --George Ho (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

How should we show the nationality of a person in WP? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth Warren

Given that United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 contains the information in both proposed versions, what should be in the '2012 Election' section of this article? The two proposed versions are: short and long. Darx9url (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Satyananda Saraswati

Please come forward to explain why you think that this[2] cannot be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totocol (talkcontribs) 11:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Hands up, don't shoot

Should we very briefly describe a WP:SUMMARY of the shooting and controversy of the evidence/witnesses to give context to the origin of these protests and the gesture the article is about. One proposed wording would be "There is conflicting evidence and witness statements regarding the circumstances of the shooting, and in particular the position of Brown's hands at the time of the shooting."
  • suppport as nom. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of states with limited recognition

Propose support for the use of subsection titles within section "Present geopolitical entities by level of recognition" to use text "Non-UN members..."

Also propose support for the presentation of items in sequence of recognition and not in sequence of lack of recognition.

This would present contents as follows:

  • UN member states not recognised by at least one UN member
  • Non-UN members recognised by at least one UN member
  • Non-UN members recognised only by non-UN members
  • Non-UN members not recognised by any state

My argument is that we can't speak in Wikipedia's voice to describe a "state" in situations in which that view is not unanimously accepted and may be unanimously rejected. I also think that, if recognition is a positive and lack of recognition is a negative, then the list should most naturally be presented in that order.

At present content is presented as follows:

  • Non-UN member states not recognised by any state
  • Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members
  • Non-UN member states recognised by at least one UN member
  • UN member states not recognised by at least one UN member

The article Sovereign state begins, "A state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system.." I don't see how we can declare non recognised entities to be states. We can declare non-UN members to be exactly that. Gregkaye 13:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre

There is currently a substantial "media coverage" section that has been a subject of some edit warring. Input is requested on the following:
  • Should the section exist at all? And if so, is it the correct size or too long?
  • Should the section, if it is included, contain the first and third paragraphs, focusing on CNN, in the linked version of the article? Or should those paragraphs be removed, as in this version of the article?

-- Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism

When a group gains territorial control of an area and commits an atrocity, is this best defined as terrorism or something else? Please feel free to speculate on potential motivations of groups such as intimidation and coercion of local populations and intimidation to the point of educing terror amongst surrounding groups.

This relates to a related discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant but which has significant differences to the content of this discussion. I think that this is a valid question to ask independence of editors involved on the ISIL page but would be happy to place notification on that page if considered relevant. See: WP:FORUMSHOP Gregkaye 11:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Day of Ashura

File:Ashura cutting.jpg
Pakistani Shiite Muslims perform religious rituals during an Ashura procession in Quetta on November 25, 2012.

Should an image (either the one right, or a similar other one) be included in the article in the section on Day_of_Ashura#Cutting_with_knives_or_chains

Survey

  • include notable part of the day, and similar images are very regularly included by WP:RS in their stories about the day.The image was previously removed per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Moral_issues But I note that the people are a) in a group. b) not identifiable (their faces are not visible) c) in public Gaijin42 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2014 (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: 2014-12-27 19:57 (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