Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism

 Main Talk Portal Showcase Assessment Collaboration Incubator Guide Newsroom About Us Commons 

Phenomenal new department added!

I just launched the Conservatism Incubator, shortcut WP:RIGHT/I. It is a workspace designed specifically for us for collaboratively working on new articles and deleted articles not ready for mainspace. There are currently 3 articles listed, all conservative African-American BLPs. Hmmm. I wonder... does this qualify as an affirmative action program? lol – Lionel ^(talk) 02:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Raymond A. Watson

Looks like prejudice against rural areas: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raymond_A._Watson. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. It's anti-unnotable-person bias. Also, Watson's a conservative and the main point of the article (I think) is to hang a bunch of "controversies" on him. There is a liberal bias in the Wikipedia probably, and that's a problem, but don't go overboard. Herostratus (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm a liberal and defending the inclusion of an article on Watson, whose policies I don't like, and you're a conservative and knocking small towns like East Jesus, Montana. Life on Wikipedia can get complicated. We need a beer summit. Down the hatch, buddy, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, again. What happened to the above article, which was moved to the Incubator but is not listed as being there? I had to do some searching to retrieve it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd. Looks like a bug in the HTML code. I'll debug it. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for help on AUL article

To whoever may find this: I work for Americans United for Life (AUL), an organization that is the subject of a Wikipedia article within the scope of this WikiProject. The article isn't very good and never has been, so I reached out to a friend who is a Wikipedia editor and received their assistance in researching and writing a new Wikipedia article about AUL. You can see the draft here: User:ProLifeDC/AUL replacement draft. As I've explained further on the AUL discussion page, the article has been written carefully to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Because of my involvement with AUL I am reluctant to move it myself, so I'd appreciate it if another editor could review the article, make any changes if necessary, and move it into the main space. Thanks for your consideration,ProLifeDC (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look at it this evening and make the edits. Soonersfan168 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As a general comment, you should probably get input from a slightly more diverse group of editors before moving it. There's no indication of other editors' input into the draft, and by advertising it solely to WikiProject Conservatism, you risk receiving a relatively narrow and potentially partisan range of feedback. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion is largely defunct, but you may want to seek out and invite editors who have been active on topics related to the abortion debate to review the draft. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty with doing things this way is that you lose the revision history which shows who has copyright in various parts of the article. That is OK, if you completely wrote the new version from scratch because then you are the only author. But if you copied in all or part of the old article as a starting point, then you are violating policy. See CC-BY-SA 3.0 license which requires that you identify all contributors to the article. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

ProLifeDC thanks for stopping by! I'd also be happy to look over your draft to make sure it passes NPOV. JR's point is well taken. The edit history must be preserved, so WP:MOVE is problematic. I believe a solution would be to cut-and-paste your draft over the target article. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. To be clear, the draft I prepared is mostly new, but it does preserve and modify some worthwhile text and citations from the current version. And it was not my intent that the new version wipe out the previous history of the article, simply to copy mine over and paste it as mentioned. If one of the editors here is still able to review it, that's great. And MastCell, I'm open to a wider discussion, but I did notice as you point out that WikiProject Abortion is no longer active. Suggestions are welcome. Thanks, ProLifeDC (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a copy/paste is best. The replacement draft has some very curious turns of phrase regarding the fetus: "protections from criminal violence" and "unlawful criminal violence". This kind of wording is not in common parlance—people just say "abortion". This wording should only be presented as a direct quote of the model legislation and not in Wikipedia's editorial voice. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, the terms you quote aren't meant to refer to abortion, but to assaults on a pregnant woman that may lead to injury or death for the unborn child. The phrase "criminal violence" is certainly commonplace in that context, and that's all it means. Hope that clears it up. Thanks, ProLifeDC (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem remains. Here's one of the problem sentences: "It also works to create and support legal protections for unborn children, including protections from criminal violence, for which it has drafted model legislation." Where is the mention of pregnant women in that sentence? It is wholly absent. Also, two arguments are put forward using blogs, to reply to Mother Jones. I think that only secondary sources should be used to counter a secondary source. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No objections on the article talk page. Bink raises valid concerns: that should be easily resolved via normal deliberative process on talk page. Taken as a whole the draft is an improvement. I was bold and cut & pasted the draft. Further discussion regarding this article should continue at the talk page. Another satisfied customer. Should we get a tip jar? – Lionel ^(talk) 04:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, I don't think the introduction is inaccurate, but maybe it could be clarified better. Instead of saying "including protection from criminal violence" it should say "including protection of pregnant women from criminal violence".

And regarding the Mother Jones article and sources used to respond, all of that has been preserved from the current article, so it could be dealt with later. The only thing I would add to this is that one of the "blogs" is from AUL.org, which is a reliable source for the purpose of describing AUL's opinion, whether it's in a blog subdirectory or not. Since Lionelt has already moved it over, we can just have this discussion on the Talk for the page. Thanks, ProLifeDC (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The article looks good. I would however question using the term "criminal violence" which appears to be jargon used by the group and may be considered non-neutral and confusing to a wider audience. The expression from "at all stages of life" is confusing. It makes me think of Christian socialists who oppose abortion and the death penalty. TFD (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter

Who wants to publish the newsletter?– Lionel ^(talk) 03:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What are your premises?

As Ayn Rand used to say, "Check your premises!". So to begin with, what are the premises of Conservatism as you understand them? JRSpriggs (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no good answer to this question. As far as I can tell, the main premise of this project is the promotion of US-centric right-wing political aims, specified at social conservatism in the United States. Several people have tried to expand the coverage to better suit the much larger field of conservatism, but the driving force behind this project remains firmly Amero-centric and activist. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

First off, JRSpriggs, we have no premise - our goal is to improve coverage of articles related to conservatism.

Second, Binksternet, this project has been under fire from editors like yourself since its creation. Unless you have proof this WikiProject is editing with bias and is activist, please stop the attacks. We welcome anyone of any belief to join. Toa Nidhiki05 15:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

However, Lionelt primarily invites new users who are proven neo-cons or Tea Party-ers or pro-lifers, stacking the project against classic British Conservatism, or any other kind of conservatism. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Lionel can invite whoever he wants. I can invite whoever I want. Any member can invite whoever he wants. Is there a problem with that that merits this WP getting treated differently than another? If someone has shown interest in articles on this project, they'll get invited. Is it wrong for someone to invite a U2 fan to Wikipedia:WikiProject U2? Toa Nidhiki05 17:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Alan Ware writes, "Conservatism as a philosophy is generally seen as a defense of the status quo from major changes in political, economic, or social institutions in society.... They were opposed to change--largely to protect their own economic and political interests, but also partly out of a sense of paternalistic responsibility for the politically powerless who would be harmed by the absence of restraints on economic markets...[i.e., protect them from free market capitalism]"[1] Russell Kirk and Peter Viereck believed that the federalists and antebellum southerners were conservatives. Clinton Rossiter and Patrick Allitt believed that conservatism continued and was represented by such presidents as Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. TFD (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism—the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known—as conservative." Big problems with scope here, rooted in uncorrectable historical and cultural differences in how we define "conservatism". Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The premise of this project is a group of editors who edit conservatism-related articles. This is not a project tasked with defining conservatism. The scope is ancillary. We're here to work with editors who have similar interests. I'm perfectly OK with a living, breathing scope that changes depending on the circumstances, you know, like the US Constitution <g>. Regarding the coverage, for my part, I have worked tirelessly to locate non-US articles, and have personally tagged hundreds. I have also added dozens of non-US conservatism categories. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason I asked is that, like Binksternet, I see a tension between two strains of conservatism in America. They share one belief:

• Traditional social values have been tested by time and are thus superior to 'progressive' fads which are often just excuses to give into the temptation to seek short-term gratification at the expense of future well-being.

But they differ on the proper response:

• The State, Church, or other authorities should enforce traditional values; countering short-term gratification with short-term penalties to keep people on the path to their future good.
• The authorities should leave people alone because it is more important for people to internalize self-control by learning the hard way. Also the authorities lack the wisdom and integrity to correctly identify the proper values; that is, they are often captured by the fads in which case they would be misleading people.

So which version of conservatism are we talking about here? Or is there a third version of which I am not aware? JRSpriggs (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This project is for all types - social conservatism, neoconservatism, liberal conservatism, fiscal conservatism, libertarian conservatism, euroskepticism, etc. Toa Nidhiki05 12:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Neo-liberalism and libertarianism are versions of liberalism, not conservatism. Look at the influences - Rand, Hayek, and Friedman, neo-classical economics, Locke and Adam Smith. American social conservatism is also a branch of liberalism. The influence is English Puritanism and protestant sectarianism. None of this has anything to do with conservatism. We should change this project's name to liberalism. TFD (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There already is a WikiProject:Liberalism. Those are all related to conservatism as well. Toa Nidhiki05 17:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No there is not, it re-directs to WikiProject Political culture. In the 1930s, Roosevelt called his supporters "liberals" and his opponents "conservatives". They objected, saying they were "true liberals", but 20 years later they decided to adopt the term, over the objections of Hayek and others. (See Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative".[2] Roosevelt could just as easily have called his supporters conservatives and his opponents liberals. The terminology has nothing to do with how the words are normally understood. TFD (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "We should change this project's name?" You aren't even a member. And it is the membership that decides what they will call themselves and what articles interest them. Have you ever stopped to think that the members want to include American conservatism here, in this project, and don't care if some academic calls it liberalism, liberal conservatism or whatever-ism.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You are speaking for members who have not spoken about this issue. How do you know what the members want? Unless you think that in selecting specific editors to invite to the project, you are collecting a chorus of yes-men who back you up at every turn. You didn't invite me, but I joined. As a member, I think the project's name should be changed to Post-Reagan Conservatism or something of that nature. The problem with naming the project is the same as naming the scope... there is no good focus. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A conservative would never write "it is the membership that decides" and that he does not "care if some academic calls it liberalism...." The conservative approach is to defer to authority and ignore what the unwashed masses happen to think. It is a great tragedy that there was no conservative tradition in the U.S., which would have been a moderating influence on political debate. TFD (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for the general discussion of conservatism, guys. If you are just here to attack members or try to push an agenda, please go away - we don't need divisive, unconstructive editors that are hell-bent on destroying this WP. Toa Nidhiki05 11:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing the scope of the project. Before the emergence of socialism, the main political division was between liberals who supported limited government and free markets and conservatives who wanted to preserve medieval institutions. This project defines both as conservative. So either we should change the name of the project or limit its scope or both. TFD (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not WikiProject:Conservatism in the 1700s - this is WikiProject:Conservatism. Stop the bantering and either try and help the project or leave. Toa Nidhiki05 20:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that conservatism in the 1700s and before should be excluded in the scope of the project? Could you please provide a cut-off date. TFD (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No. No. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So do we present the royalists as the conservatives, or people such as John Locke and Adam Smith who supported free markets and limited government? TFD (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

TFD, what we cover here is fairly clear. Get off of this page - you are not editing in good faith and are doing nothing to aid this WikiProject. If you are so morally opposed to this project, just pretend it doesn't exist. Toa Nidhiki05 13:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. Defining the scope of the project helps it.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What we cover here is not clear. You and Lionelt have an interest in modern American right-wing populism, but have not explained what else belongs in the article. TFD (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The scope is clearly defined on the Project's main page. TFD's bantering is apparently to try and narrow our scope significantly - rather than attempt to improve or aid this project, he evidently wants to try and harm it. I'm not assuming bad faith, per WP:DUCK.

Also, please don't try to speak for me or Lionelt, or accuse me (or any other editor) of editing with a bias, TFD - if you don't want to help improve the 3,000+ articles that we are trying to improve, please go away. Toa Nidhiki05 21:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you accusing TFD of bias while rejecting the accusation of bias on your own part? That kind of discourse really isn't helpful. Rather than talking about each other I'd encourage folks to stick to the topic, which is the scope of the project.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone who isn't a member of this Project really has no business trying to redefine its goals. Toa Nidhiki05 22:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We're all members of the Wikipedia community. Wikiproject members have no special status and do not own the projects in which they participate. I am active with many projects but I rarely bother signing in as a member because it has little meaning. Again, let's avoid discussing other editors and just stick to the topic.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a few issues where the desire of a wikiproject's membership takes precedence over the larger community. One for instance is if an article should be tagged by the project, another is the scope of the project: "A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project." – Lionel ^(talk) 00:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Would mind explaining what the scope is? TFD (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We've explained here and it is explained on the main page. This bantering has no use at this point, TFD. You are not a member, and have no right to change our scope. Toa Nidhiki05 00:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the scope? TFD (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you read, TFD? Perhaps you should open up the FAQ section at the top of the page, because it is up there. Toa Nidhiki05 01:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The FAQ says, "we are dedicated to improving articles related to conservatism". What do you mean by conservatism? Incidentally, it would be a reasonable assumption that anyone contributing to this talk page had the ability to read, but thank you for asking. TFD (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, this "you-are-not-a-member" stuff is incredibly silly. All it takes to be a member is to profess an interest in "conservatism" and to add one's name to the members list. There are precedents for WikiProjects removing (or, more often) ignoring disruptive individual members, but in this case there seems to be a knee-jerk, blanket resistance to anyone who asks questions about the project's scope or aims. That doesn't bode well for the project's future, nor reflect well on its current membership. MastCell ^Talk 06:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at the 'conservatism' page, TFD. Toa Nidhiki05 12:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus? MastCell ^Talk 16:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, accidently used the name of an editor I had been in dispute with outside of here. :) Toa Nidhiki05 17:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Which page is that? TFD (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of conservatism may be deleted

Timeline of conservatism has been nominated for deletion. You can make your voice heard here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of conservatism. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You have not yet explained how we present disputed history. The example given was the American Revolution. Was the conflict between

• a liberal empire and liberal colonists
• a conservative empire and conservative colonists
• a conservative empire and both conservative and liberal colonists
• a liberal empire and conservative colonists
• a liberal empire and both liberal and conservative colonists
• a liberal-conservative empire and liberal colonists
• a liberal-conservative empire and conservative colonists
• a liberal-conservative empire and both liberal and conservative colonists

TFD (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What I think doesn't matter. What matters is whether a reliable source considers an event related to conservatism.– Lionel ^(talk) 05:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources disagree as explained above. How do you report this? TFD (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

style guide

I think the style guide as currently presented was properly explained. The style for articles on people and other topics in this area is in no way different from the style for people and things of the same nature elsewhere. We do not write differently according to the political views of the subject of an article. However, I see nothing much wrong with it, except a few omissions, which I have remedied, and I suggest we add some clarifying language. I'll make a try at it. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hypocrisy?

I'm curious to know how conservatives address issues in which they exhibit hypocrisy (besides deleting posts that point it out). For example, many conservatives claim that human life is valuable (a reason to oppose abortion), while simultaneously opposing any Minimum Wage Law that is designed to help keep alive humans that are already born. Also, conservatives generally oppose the idea that if somebody wants something, then someone else should pay for it --prime example: women on Welfare having more babies at public expense. Logically, however, it follows that if conservatives are against abortions, then that means that conservatives should pay for the births they want to happen, and for the costs of raising those children....

Well, that's just a couple of the obvious hypocrisies of conservatives. There are others. But these are enough to get started, in seeking answers to such issues. Thanks in advance! V (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)