Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism

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

Read my lips: no new taxes FAR

I have nominated Read my lips: no new taxes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This looks headed toward being delisted. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Taxmageddon

On the Bush tax cuts article I've suggested a new section and it would be helpful if members of this WikiProject could provide their input. The addition I've written includes discussion of the news coverage and ongoing debate surrounding what has become known as "Taxmageddon", and I believe this may be of interest to editors here. I haven't added it into the article yet because a source I've used is from The Heritage Foundation, where I work, so I would prefer to have some feedback, if possible. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Urgent: Krista Branch GA

Krista Branch has been up for GA for over 3 months and urgently needs a reviewer. She is known for "I am America" which is the anthem of the TEA Party. Do you need any more motivation than that? If anyone has GA experience please click here: Talk:Krista Branch/GA1. Let's git er done! – Lionel ^(talk) 07:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Current AfD nomination of List of Tea Party politicians

Hi folks. List of Tea Party politicians comfortably survived AfD in May, but it has been nominated again. You may want to comment on the AfD and/or work on the article itself. Best, BDD (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"How right-wingers took over Wikipedia"

Contrary to the overwhelming consensus of the members of this wikiproject, it is the right wingers who are running this sanitarium, according to Marc McDonald. He writes, "Increasingly over the years, literally thousands of Wikipedia’s political articles have gradually and quietly been given a right-wing spin" and explains "the right-wing “contributors” are ferociously tenacious. They will go in and sanitize and slant an article over and over until it reads the way they want it to. These people are well-organized, ruthless and determined and they usually eventually get their way, via sheer blunt force." For evidence he offers the "sanitized" George Bush and what he describes as extremely unflattering Bill Clinton article. IMO Mr. McDonald should be blocked for fostering a WP:Battleground mentality. McDonald's ridiculous and irrational "analysis" makes fascinating reading. But the piece de resistance comes by way of the first post in the Reader Comments section (emph. mine):

You don't know the half of it. The editors at WikiProject Conservatism have teamed up with the exiles and wikihaters at Wikipediocracy to oust administrators they think are too liberal. There's an ongoing effort to purge Wikipedia of liberal editors and entrap them in time consuming arbitration processes. This, along with off-site coordination of editors paid through advocacy groups like the Susan B. Anthony List has been steadily eroding Wikipedia's ability to remain an impartial resource. --Scarb

My jaw dropped in disbelief when I read that. Maybe he should've interviewed LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, or NYYankees, or Haymaker, or any of the dozen other editors banned in the Abortion arbom case. Ironic to be sure. I'll paraphrase our VP and leave you with this 3-letter word: LMFAO. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: WTF is "Wikipediocracy?"

Liberals tend to have a real talent for projection. This is a stunning example. Oh, and I found this: Wikipediocracy Belchfire (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change our logo

WikiProject Conservatism don't care

I propose that we change our logo from Edmund Burke to the most ferrocious and tenacious animal on the planet, he's ruthless and determined and always gets his way, usually, I give you... the honey badger. LMFAO. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with classifying parties as 'conservative' in non-western contexts

Hi there. I think this is a valuable project, but I do have one concern which I've seen a few times, which is the extension of 'conservatism' to countries with political systems very different from those in America and Europe. For example, I've seen political groups in Russia tagged as part of WikiProject Conservatism - but who are the 'conservatives' in modern Russia? Those who want to restore the Soviet Union? Supporters of Putin's government? Those who support right-wing politics in general? It's not obviously clear. Likewise, in countries like Egypt or Iran - does 'conservatism' refer to supporters of the old regime, or religious conservatives, or what? Taiwanese politics is based around the division between closer and further relations with China - who are the 'conservatives' there?

All I'm asking for a little restraint in tagging people and groups as part of this project. Not every country has a political system like that of the United States, and not every political system has a faction that corresponds to what we think of as 'conservatism'. I'm not saying this template can't be used to tag groups outside of the US and Europe, but think carefully before you do. Robofish (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Conservatism can be defined as contextual, in which case every country has conservatives. Or it can be defined as an ideology with specific principles, in which case it is limited to Western Europe and countries that have copied European conservatism. Specifically they are parties that developed out of a royalist or aristocratic reaction to liberalism. I believe though that both Putin's party and the KMT consider themselves conservatives. However I see no reason to include liberal, religious, post-communist, nationalist or other parties that do not consider themselves conservatives. TFD (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your beliefs are errant. Putin does not call himself "conservative" nor did the KMT call itself "conservative". They are both "nationalist". That does not make either example "conservative." All of which misses the point - any project "interested" in an article is free, on Wikipedia, to tag that article as being one of interest to that project. It does not make the subject of the article "conservative" as in this case. And such a tag can be discussed here, and is subject to consensus here. Collect (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"At its most recent national convention in St. Petersburg in November 2009, Vladimir Putin's United Russia described itself again as a conservative party. Officially, it stands for the country's heritage and its values."[1] See the Greenwood History of China entry for the KMT: "politically conservative".[2] TFD (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your "conservative Putin" nationalised some industries. Not "conservative" AFAICT, except as you note in being nationalist. Which I already accepted. The KMT is now labelled "conservative" mainly in its stance on nationalism also. Again - I said that already. [3] calls the KMT "centre-right" which is a very broad area. The Economist [4] says the KMT had a substantial shift in 2001 to reunificationism, which is unlikely to be viewed as "conservative." In short, Houston, we have a problem in trying to use "political spectrums" as contant in any sense of the word. Collect (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am having difficulty following your criteria for inclusion. You vote to include the liberal National Party of Honduras and the right-wing extremist Swiss People's Party because someone once called them that, yet exclude other parties. Actually nationalization of industry can be conservative, Bismarck nationalized industry. TFD (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no "criteria for inclusion." I have made no such "votes." I suggest that inclusion is entirely up to the people here, using WP:CONSENSUS and nothing more. I assert nothing about what I "know" to be the "truth" - I suggest that the way Wikiprojects work is by doing what CONSENSUS dictates, not by me giving some sily "criteria" which I would impose on this project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus only comes about after editors requested something be included/excluded. Are you saying that you have no criteria for requesting inclusion/exclusion before consensus is reached? Or do you have criteria for your decisions? TFD (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You claimed I have made "votes" here to include some particular party. I assert that my position has been, and remains, that it is up to WP:CONSENSUS and not any "votes" as to what should be part of the project and what should not be part of the project. Is there some actual reason for your iterated queries here? Collect (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Major change to socially conservative orgs & people

An editor is changing the ledes of pro-family/pro-life articles from "social conservative" to "traditional values." I've reverted where the new sentence is ungrammatical, but left the others for the time being. IMO the "social conservatism" article is the better wikilink because it best describes the orgs & people at issue. Other thoughts? – Lionel ^(talk) 10:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

By ungrammatical i presume you mean the instances where traditional value had an "s" at the end. Is that what you meant? Pass a Method talk 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Btw, i wouldn't have reverted you if i felt you were not stalking my edits. But you're behavior in the past has clearly shown you are stalking me. Pass a Method talk 10:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that you just confessed to WP:POINTy editing? Reverting based on retaliation is disruptive. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not revert based on retaliation. I simply have a low faith in your editing ability because of some of your past behaviors (including stalking). This is why i give less consideration to your opinion. Thats not retaliatory editing. Pass a Method talk 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Guess what... after your little stunt of unilaterally renaming all of the "Homosexuality and [insert religion]" articles there are probably about a dozen editors "stalking" you. Hmmm... and here you are again unilaterally making major changes to articles. I guess you didn't learn your lesson the last time. And btw, before you accuse someone of "stalking" maybe you should read WP:HOUND so you will know what you are talking about.– Lionel ^(talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I havent noticed stalking from anyone but you so stop trying to divert attention from yourself . In fact, at one point recently i was thinking of leaving a note on your talk page about it again but i thought i would give you the benefit of the doubt and avoud a message on your talk page. But once again today, you show up today. From now on i will propose for you to avoid interacting with me and i will do the same. This way you can prove that you are not in fact stalking me. In case we do happen to incidentaly interact, you can instead leave a message on my talk page or on a wikiproject about my edit. The next time you show up at my edits i will post about it on a noticeboard. Pass a Method talk 12:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As for major changes, i dont see how changing a term with a synonymous one can be considered a "major change". Pass a Method talk 13:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If it were "synonymous" it would lead to the same article. It doesn't, therefore is not "synonymous" by Wikipedia usage. Collect (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Vietnamese diacritics

• RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)