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]


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



So there is WP:Gender gap, which appears to be a helpful resource and/or recruit non-males to edit and become involved in Wikipedia and other wiki projects. At least in the United States, such programs to help women exist, and have been so successful, that female enrollment and completion far outpace their male counterparts. Therefore, since as has been verified, there are more liberal editors than non-liberal editors, as one of the pillars of the community is neutrality, and as more non-liberal editors will help create a more neutral wikipedia (see WP:STRAIGHT), I hereby would like to present an idea. Why doesn't WP:RIGHT work with WP:CSB and create a join project or a task force to reduce the partisan gap? This addresses a long standing and verified problem of the project, in an open and helpful manner which can only serve to improve the project as a whole. If new editors are taught how to edit civilly and within the policies and guidelines of our community it will increase our editing community and increase neutrality of articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read this section: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Distinguishing_between_selection_bias_and_systemic_bias.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
There are so many mistaken or misguided assumptions underlying this proposal that it's hard to know where to start. For one thing, I think it's foolish to dichotomize all editors into "liberals" and "non-liberals". That sort of thinking reflects a fundamental conception of Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, and insofar as this WikiProject has had serious ongoing problems with promoting a battleground attitude, it is best avoided. Secondly, while it seems to be an article of faith among some members of this WikiProject that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, empirical support for this belief is sorely lacking. Simply asserting that such a bias exists (with a link to a Wikipedia article citing a bunch of partisans complaining about the site) doesn't exactly prove your case, but rather highlights its weakness. Finally, even if we assume that such a bias exists, the worst possible solution is to seek to inject additional highly partisan editors into the mix. That's a recipe for disaster, not neutrality. MastCell Talk 00:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"this WikiProject has had serious ongoing problems with promoting a battleground attitude" Really, on-going where? Care to to point where or were you just casting aspersions without any basis? This WikiProject is almost inactive. It also has been the target of several nominations for deletion, and amusingly, simply the fact this project exists seems to annoy you people. --Pudeo' 02:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Ongoing right here, in RightCowLeftCoast's proposal and the assumptions that underlie it. And ongoing in your response, which refuses even to consider the concern voiced by many, many outside editors that this project, while arguably sound in theory, has in practice been a tool to coordinate politically partisan editing. "You people".... heh. MastCell Talk 17:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The reason there is a liberal bias in Wikipedia is that there is a liberal bias in reliable sources, since the "neutrality" policy requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (my emphasis) So non-liberal views (communism, Islamism, etc.) do not receive the same weight as liberal views. But if this is a problem, the solution is to change policy.
The problem I see with your suggestion however is what weight to assign different views, if not the current policy. Conservapedia and other wikis do that by adopting another bias. But how would we determine what weight to provide various non-liberal views?
TFD (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
That's true, the only bias "that could be acted on" would be bias on topic coverage (i.e. same argument that less women users -> less articles on women). But Wikipedia's coverage of conservative authors, biographies and subjects is already excellent in my opinion. While I also think that in theory more editors with the same views in some controversial topic will create bias, "administering a remedy" would not work or be wise because Wikipedia process is not a machine you can turn 0.2 degrees right to fix bias. --Pudeo' 19:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is the same argument at all. The problem with few women is not just that that leads to fewer articles on women, but that it leads to a lack of coverage of female perspectives and what women tend to be interested in, and over-representation of male perspectives and what men tend to be interested in. So the problem is that female perspectives and interests are represented in the reliable sources - but do not make it into wikipedia. That discrepancy between the representation in the sources and in wikipedia is not the case for conservative interests and perspectives, which as you recognize are covered.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
There might be great coverage of conservative authors, biographies and subjects in so far as reliable sources, which as TFD would like us to believe are more liberal than non-liberal, write about them from a POV which may not have a positive view of those conservative authors, biographies and subjects. WP:NEU is not about advancing the non-neutral POV of reliable sources, but achieving NEU. If as verified by reliable source(s), and as documented here in Wikipedia, there are fewer non-liberal editors are there are liberal editors, than that is a bias IMHO which should be addressed. Now I and the wikiproject am being accused, thus showing non-adherence to good faith and also could be seen as having a battleground mentality, that our goal is to create biased content. This is definitely not the case, nor is it the intent of what my idea proposes.
WP Conservatism.png
My idea is that to work towards neutral content (as should all our goals be per WP:5P), it would be helpful to have a more politically diverse editing community. And by having a more politically diverse editing community, who are brought into the community being taught the pillars of the community from the get go, that better and more neutral content will be created.
Just as how there is an active effort to recruit female editors, in an attempt to correct a bias, than why should there not be an active effort to recruit a politically diverse (not only conservative) population, in order to correct a bias (even if perceived). This will only help Wikipedia shed the bias (even if only perceived) in the long run and improve the standing of the encyclopedia as a whole among those who believe it not unbiased.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
So we would give equal weight and validity to intelligent design and evolution, climate change and skepticism. And conservatism is not the only non-liberal ideology, there are Islamism, Marxism, conspiracism among others. A lot of people you call liberal believe that the mainstream is right-wing and see the liberal view as middle ground. Anyway, changing weight requires re-writing reliable sources policy. TFD (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There's an observation I'd like to make here, speaking as someone who would definitely be considered "liberal" on this spectrum by most people. It is not simply a matter of "liberal" sources outweighing conservative ones on WP. After all, the reliable sources do seem to carry that bias, and it doesn't normally cause a problem. Facts are facts, and it is commonly (light-heartedly) suggested (perhaps not as often now as 5 or 10 years ago) that "reality has a liberal bias". Many of you have likely seen this infographic that made the rounds a few months back.

However, it would be wrong to conclude from this evidence that a source that appeals to right-wing sensibilities is inherently less trustworthy or to be cast into suspicion. And herein lies the problem: I have noticed a tendency for "conservative" sources to be explicitly labelled as such in main article text, while "liberal" sources are not thus labelled. This is, in my mind, a clear systemic bias: the "conservative" tag functions as a scarlet letter, appealing towards a presumed liberal audience, by reminding them that a generally dissenting (due to the oppositional nature of American politics), minority (by necessity of the weight of reliable sources) view in an article is attributed to "the enemy".

I'd also like to quickly note, as a Canadian, that this discussion tends to be overwhelmingly US-centric. I saw that WikiProject:Countering Systemic Bias was invited to this discussion (which is actually why I'm here - I'd originally planned to raise the issue with them directly), and certainly they ought to be concerned with that aspect of how politics are presented in Wikipedia, if nothing else. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean very different things in different parts of the world; for American editors to label sources as "conservative" therefore has the potential to mislead.

(For what it's worth, my impression of the US political system is that they are playing good cop/bad cop by allowing the media to pander to sometimes-very-far left ideologues while both major political parties generally skew right - and either way, it is really the upper classes who profit while the have-nots are distracted by infighting about "privilege" etc. Canada is not entirely immune to these effects, but at least the New Democratic Party is viable.) (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident[edit]

Hello. As a member of WP Conservatism, I am adding the WP tag to the talkpage of 2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident, as I believe it is relevant to our project, in terms of the constitution and freedom of speech. I have been asked by editors on the article talkpage to censor my comment here, so I am censoring this right here. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Request help with Southern Strategy page[edit]

Recently I have tried to add some descending views to the Southern Strategy article. I feel like the editors who are watching the article are very quick to try to tear down articles which refute the general thrust of the article but very tolerant of poorly referenced claims or articles that support the racist GOP plan hypothesis. I can understand that the editors with a particular bias (we all have biases so that is not meant as an attack) would be more likely to tend articles of interest to them. That said, I would appreciate any help that can be offered as I'm sure I'm not as good at navigating the world of wikipedia when compared to the other editors. This article was previously cited as being of concern and the article talk page makes that history clear. [[1]] --Getoverpops (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

Interested project members are welcome to join WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, a collaborative project dedicated to improving Wikipedia articles related to HRC. Joining the project is in no way an endorsement of her or her political positions; in fact, it would be great to have people with a variety of political ideologies participating for the sake of NPOV. There are many articles to work on, and certainly she will be in the news for the foreseeable future, so thank you for your consideration. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Bandy ball[edit]

I am curious – this is funny – about why bandy ball was listed as a new article relevant to this project. :-) Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 19:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

RfD notification: Conservative news[edit]

Conservative news has been nominated at RfD. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 27#Conservative news would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Request re-assessment for article, Carly Fiorina[edit]

I've been working on the article regarding Carly Fiorina over the last month, as well as making a few changes and improvements; but, I've also realized that this article is still marked as "low importance in the WikiProject Conservatism. It also has no such rating for WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Women writers. Yet, I've realized that as of April 2015 (especially) it has been intimated that Firorina will campaign for a 2016 GOP Presidential nomination, although it does not seem to be officially confirmed; meanwhile, the page currently says that she "actively seeking," which seems to be an adequate description, since she appears to be making strong and more visible talking points in the media. Despite criticism and many past failures in electoral politics, Fiorina is considered a main public figure and, if in any regards, a Vice Presidential possibility by some people's standards, as well as having a career as a conservative pundit. It is my belief that Fiorina should have a higher ranking than "low." In most of these Wikipedia projects, I believe she should at least be at the next level, "Mid-importance." Ca.papavero (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Request assessment: [[]][edit]


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

Page: Carly Fiorina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Requester: [[user:{{subst:Ca.papavero}}]]


Re-confirm my request from the section above. A few things have since happened; but, altogether not yet resolved. Especially for this project on Conservatism. Thanks! Ca.papavero (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)