Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism

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


Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: An article was erroneously tagged by a member of this project.
A: Do not remove the banner. Ask the member why they tagged it, or post a message at the project talk page (below). Note: the banner does not imply that the subject has a conservative or right-wing ideology, has no relevance to neutral POV, nor that WikiProject Conservatism owns the article.[1]
Q: I'm a member and the banner I added to an article talk page was removed.
A: From PROGGUIDE: You may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article. This warning {{UWCNSV-BANNER}} can be used to notify an editor of the guideline.
Q: Can non-members tag articles?
A: Yes, but if a member removes the banner do not replace it.[1]
Q: The quality or importance rating of an article is incorrect.
A: Anyone can change the rating. Make sure to consult the assessment scale here. Ratings are subjective, importance ratings in particular can be controversial. Disputes will be resolved by project members at the project talk page (below).[2][3]
Q: What is the scope of this WikiProject?
A: As stated on the main page of this project, we are dedicated to improving articles related to conservatism, not limited to any particular form or national variety of conservatism.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for WP:WikiProject Conservatism:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
 

Request assessment: New Labour, New Danger[edit]

Review.png

It is requested that a member assess the quality and/or importance of the following article:

Page: New Labour, New Danger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Requester: user:The C of E


Comments:

Per a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies[edit]

Per a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#LGBT critics categorization? wider input is sought in that discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Assistance with Heritage Action[edit]

Recently, my colleague Morzabeth posted here asking for editors who'd be interested to review a draft for the Heritage Action article. However, she had trouble finding editors to continue a conversation past the first reply, and I am now stepping in to see if I can help move it forward.

As noted there, we are working on a consulting basis with Heritage Action, and so we will avoid making direct edits to the article, considering our paid COI. Our aim is to make this article more encyclopedic, improve sourcing, give a clearer overview of the organization and its activities. As Morzabeth explained on the Heritage Action Talk page, the current article has much room for improvement.

The proposed draft in in Morzabeth's user space. She has made changes to it based on feedback, and I am willing to make other changes as needed. On the Heritage Action Talk page you can see the discussion since she first posted the request in July; unfortunately it consists of one comment each from three editors, without any follow-up.

I am looking for an editor who is interested in helping to review the current draft and work with me until they are satisfied it is deserving of moving into the mainspace. Thanks in advance, and I hope to see you back on that Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Way Forward: Renewing the American Idea by Paul Ryan[edit]

Hello. I would appreciate it if some of you could expand The Way Forward: Renewing the American Idea, Paul Ryan's 2014 book. I did what I could for a start status with the reviews I found online. It would be nice to add a copyright-free picture of the cover inside the infobox. Also more relevant quotations from reviews and an expanded summary would be good. It's looking poorly in comparison to Hard Choices, so I hope you can help. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would hope this isn't about comparing the page about a book by an author from one party with the page about a book by an author of the other party. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? I am adding more conservative content to Wikipedia because I tend to be more interested in conservatism (isn't that the point of this WP?), although I also happen to have read Hillary's book (I haven't read Ryan's yet, though I intend to). I think Ryan's page should be at least as long as Hillary's.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. It's just the way that you said it, it sounded like you were framing it as a competition. It's the difference between improving a page in its own right versus improving a page because it isn't as "good" as a page about a different POV. If instead you had compared it to No Apology, I wouldn't have said anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that was a fun read too. Yes, I only brought up Hillary's book because it is very recent. Anyway, this is getting off topic. I hope some of you can help expand the page. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

American Principles Project[edit]

The article American Principles Project (about the conservative 501c non-profit group founded by Professor Robert Geroge of Princton University) needs some attn from editors interested and knowledgable about the subject. Article has recently had over 8000bytes of text removed and tagged for notability. Appears to be a notable org (gets 128 hits in google news in 0.22 seconds [1], but I don't have the time to put the work in article it needs. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC at Cambodian genocide denial[edit]

I have started an rfc about whether the depiction of Chomsky's views and statements in relation to the Cambodian genocide is neutral. Please participate.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Political designations in blp infoboxes; or, "Is Orson Scott Card a genuine Democrat?"[edit]

The question turns on the use of the political party field in the infobox at blp's for individuals notable as political commentators. If that person is independent, would it be misleading to give his political affiliation, eg, a libertarian-leading conservative who voted for Obama as nonetheless affiliated as a Republican or a Lieberman-supporting commentator who ended up supporting Bush, McCain and Romney but who nevertheless prides himself as a member of the Democratic party? See the RfC @ Talk:Orson_Scott_Card#RFC:_Should_we_include_his_political_party_in_the_infobox.3F.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)