Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Help with Sen. Corker's article

Hi, I have been working on improving Senator Bob Corker's article for several months now. I work for Sen. Corker's campaign and because of my conflict of interest I have been focusing my efforts on reaching out to other editors to review my suggestions. Last week I placed two requests on Sen. Corker's talk page that I would like reviewed. The first request addresses two separate "Senate campaign" sections of the article and the second request asks for a small addition to be made to the "Blind trust" section. I hope that an editor here can review these requests and implement these changes for me. Thanks. Mark from tn (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is The Founder

I find it extremely unusual that User:Lionelt has not participated in the important discussion above. Should we be concerned for a RL situation that prevents his input? For someone that had such obvious constant and strict control over this project, his absence is remarkable. While User:Toa has been commendable as an available spokesperson for the project, I'm quite sure we would all like to hear from the boss.```Buster Seven Talk 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Attempts have been made to contact him. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We can move forward without him. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed we can, should and are doing so. But it should never be said that we're blindsiding him by taking away his chance to respond. I personally sent him an email, so I know that he's aware of this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's just that User:Lionelt should be defending his "offspring". During Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism he was constantly and emphatically commenting (on mostly delete votes). He defended it vociferously then; why not now? I agree movement forward can proceed but it would be broadened with his participation. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely: he really ought to be here. But we've made multiple good faith attempts to inform him over a span of time and get him to show up, so if he chooses not to participate or is for some reason unable to, there's little more that we can do about it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A request to all: please keep the discussion cool and civil.

I’ve noticed that people on both sides have been getting a bit to fired-up of late, and so, I wanted to request that we keep this discussion civil. Avoiding personal attacks, and also avoiding “us vs. them” rhetoric is key to resolving anything as a group. We all have to remember that this is not about a war between factions, but a desire to solve a problem, so that the project may move forward and continue to improve Wikipedia. I commend Toa for his willingness to discuss and engage with editors who have concerns. I do wish, however, that more people would participate. If anyone is reading this, feel free to chime in with an open mind. And also, if you know anyone that probably should be involved, give them a ring and tell them to head on over here. Thank you. RGloucester (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you for being civil as well, and I would advise the same. Discussion is being somewhat productive, so let's keep going with that and see where it leads to. Let's not pick sides or throw dirt at other participants. Toa Nidhiki05 23:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

An ex-President said, just today, "We should not be antagonistic forces against each other." ```Buster Seven Talk 04:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The official place where you can ask TN about stuff

Basically, if you have a question, suggestion, or concern related to WikiProject Cosnervatism, please post it here and I will respond to you when I can. While I am not an official spokesman, I am more than willing to discuss and comment on behalf of the project (unless there are internal objections). Toa Nidhiki05 23:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask this: would you be interested in taking a role of trying to help the Project address and fix the concerns that other users have been raising here? Please understand that you are entirely free to say no, especially if you feel that the concerns are things with which you disagree. But I think that evidence that some members of the Project would be willing to work towards mending things might well be a reason not to re-start efforts towards a formal RfC at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If nobody in the project objects and the rest of you think I would be neutral enough for it, I'd be up to do it - I'd prefer not to get this to an RfC, especially if it can be prevented. As far as I'm concerned the gist of what you are suggesting is basically what I am doing right now - trying to demonstrate the good-faith intent of this project and a willingness to discuss. The only difference is adding non-objectionable action into the mix.

However, I would qualify that with I'm not going to be 'taking over' as leader or taking a leadership role, but implementing common-sense proposals. I'll be discussing and implementing positive changes to help solve issues, but I would not doing stuff like changing the scope or changing the name- those issues belong to the Project as a whole to discuss. However, I'd be fine with changing or improving the FAQ, removing questionable posts on the talk page and 'About' page (or banning them entirely like many projects do), clarifying our stance on bad behavior, etc. The way I picture this is more akin to a housekeeper than a remodeler. Just as a note, I'll probably not be on here for the rest of the night due to football, but I'll check back at halftime. :) Toa Nidhiki05 23:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhhh! With responsibility comes the problem of time management. I can tell you're not married because you still think you can get everything done during halftime. Good Luck 'wit 'dat. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, aside from my lack of interest in marriage or relationships in general, I'm not yet at the age of majority yet, so I doubt I legally could marry. :P Toa Nidhiki05 00:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

To consolidate comments in the above discussion, please reply here, not there!

I’m creating this section, because the other section has gotten too large. If you are replying to a recent comment made up there, just say who it is you are responding to and place the comment here. This will help sort out some of the mess that’s been created above, and make the discussion easier to follow. RGloucester (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Above the statement was made:

Unfortunately, there has been no evidence that it even acknowledges the scope of the problem, much less that it's willing to fix things.

— StillStanding-247

I do not believe this comment shows that there is good faith being taken regarding concerns stated by myself and other members, and suggestions on how to direct this discussion in a manor that is productive/constructive in addressing those concerns rather than this devolving into a witch hunt.

It is my opinion that it does not help wikipedia as a whole to decimate the wikiproject as has been suggested above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I have been giving ample opportunity to allow suggestions for changes. To say we aren't willing to fix things is misleading - the goal here should not be to iblock users or to topic ban 'prominent users' from all articles the project covers (I'm assuming this includes me) , but to fix issues and discuss things civilly. Blocks and topic bans are not first resorts, they are close to the last ones, and indefinite blocks are certainly not warranted at this point. The goal isn't to eliminate users you don't like, it is to fix legitimate issues. :) Toa Nidhiki05 00:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that problem is more complicated than individual editors. Individuals are easy to deal with, by talking, guiding, sanctions or other means. It isn't about this project being a conspiracy to commit bias, but it is about the structure and design being inherently biased by its very nature. I haven't commented in a couple days because I'm wondering if we need to look at all projects that are similar, although this is the only active project with clear political leanings. In short, this project is not about improving articles that cover historical conservatism as a political theory (a valid use of a project) but instead seems to focus on very current or recent events with a decided goal of presenting a Republican perspective, even if all the members aren't biased in their editing. Once a section, a portal and project, crosses the line from "building an encyclopedia" into "insuring our side is represented", then one of two things must happen: A complete removal of the infrastructure, or a complete rebuild. Every project can't just say "well, we hope our members don't have a bias", they must PROMOTE neutrality.

Let me give you an example, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. If they went in and just mass voted "keep" on all articles, then they would be in the same position that this project is in. Instead, they make it clear that their goal is to FIX articles, not just vote to keep them at any price. They make it clear the goal is to improve Wikipedia, not just keep articles. They have a clear code of conduct, on the front page, that goes out of its way to make sure all members understand that the project won't tolerate "vote stacking", and is instead about improving the encyclopedia, not pushing an inclusionist point of view. If the Conservatism project was doing the same thing, throughout the project, with a clear and broad goal of improving the encyclopedia and not just current event bias, then I would be writing an article right now instead of typing this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Very well said. These were the sorts of inchoate thoughts I had swirling about in my brain when I called for the deletion of the project almost a year ago. I thought that MfD had a good chance of passing but I was proved wrong. I also thought it would serve as stern warning against vote stacking but instead it seemed like the general membership took the MfD result as a confirmation of the rectitude of their past practices. This cannot continue or the wiki will suffer. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree. The problem is systemic and will only be cured by systemic changes. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither you nor I are members here -- but I would humbly suggest that your position is not based on seeking NPOV on any articles. Diffs on request, but one example is at [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] (all within a single week) demonstrating an absolute misapprehension of WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and a veritable alphabet soup of policies to be violated. Further that the same editor sought an RfC on this project, seeking once anew to dismantle it. Suggestion: If you do not like a project Ignore It. Easy and much less likely to get you your twentieth warning from an admin. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, the negative influence of WikiProject Conservatism exceeds its membership roster. You are, if not a member, at least a fellow traveler. When WikiProject Conservatism vote-stacks, you can be counted on to join in on their side. So, no, you're not a neutral party. Now, you can try to turn this into an attack on me, but I won't play that game, and you should be ashamed for even trying to pull such a stunt. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and to remind you, the RFC explicitly ruled out disbanding WikiProject Conservatism, so your claim is less than true. But thanks for playing! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)There is plenty of bias in all directions from similar but less active project, which will all be dealt with in time. Politics evokes deep emotions in a great number of people, which is why I've taken a lead role, as I'm confident I'm neutral in the matter. This type of systemic bias within a project isn't easy to articulate, but I know it when I see it. As long as we stay calm and on topic, there's room for all opinions. In fairness to Still, some of it he could have ignored but some of it was thrust upon him. Restraint by both "sides" is likely a better option than simply ignoring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Collect's behavior is why there's a problem. He's a conservative editor who viciously and falsely attacks anyone who criticizes WikiProject Conservatism. Rather than recognize that there's something wrong with a project whose apparent goal is to make Wikipedia more conservative, he blames the critics. And this is why I suspect it will end in blood, with indef-bans all around. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And SS24's comments show the problem - I am not only not a "conservative" nor am I member of this project (unless Lowell Weicker is too conservative for SS24), I have sought at all points to use the proper decorum and noticeboards on all issues. And his desire for "blood" is not only non-collegial, it violates the Five Pillars. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

See, I don't desire desire blood, I merely expect it. When it comes time to chop off heads, the admins will need to make a show of parity by sacrificing a few non-conservative noggins, such as my own. But, as I said, I see no signs of the WikiProject Conservatism or its fellow travelers willing to admit that there's a real problem here, so it's going to end badly for all of us. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In which case, you ought not be a Wikipedia editor. See the Five Pillars, AGF, NPA etc. Your "expectation" runs contrary to Wikipedia policy utterly, and thus your hopes are untenab;e. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please differentiate between your post and a personal attack? I'm unable to.

Of course, it's more than personal. I was writing about the fate of the project, but you reacted by attacking me. This is what happens when people criticize the project's behavior! And it's why I anticipate blood. Too bad some of it will likely be mine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out that this is a blatant ad-hominem attack. Dennis, since you are taking ownership of this issue with this project, take ownership of ISS at the same time.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with those above. That went to far. There can be no success out of faulty rhetoric. The same type of rhetoric we are trying to prevent here. This is a discussion, not a duel in the houses of parliament. Shall we lay off, please?RGloucester (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, I'm not the "leader" of this concern, I'm taking a lead role, which I assume will be shared by others. And that is irrelevant to incivility here, which any editor should be capable of dealing with, and RGloucester has adequately. Back on point, I've still not heard from Lionelt, and this has turned into the a record length wikibreak for him. We are still faced with two options, an overhaul or going the formal way which means dismantling will be on the table as well. No one else has stepped up and said "I can fix this" or just flat out fixed the problems. I don't know if Lionelt is really that busy at this ironic time, or is playing a dangerous game of chicken. I honestly don't know, but I'm forced to assume he is busy, which is unfortunate for him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The most rational course is to avoid beating a dead horse. So far I have seen zero concrete evidence showing anything remotely approaching collusion, or any improper acts here at all. Where there is zero smoke, it is unlikely that you should call in the fire brigade. Nor do projects require any licence at all that I can find in any policy or guideline. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there is a problem, I don't know. But what really has been irking me is the lack of evidence, combined with Dennis' ...It isn't going to "blow over", and something will come of this situation, that is certain.. The anti-congruence of those two is very un-Dennis-like. Once again, maybe I'm missing something -- and I hope I am, but unless and until someone shows me the folly of my logic I'm going to remain dissapointed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

While I still have great interest in the outcome, I must, sadly remove myself from this worthwhile endeavor to straighten this crooked road. Should something be forthcoming I would appreciate a heads up. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Everyone is welcome to do nothing if they see no problem, Collect. If you think the concern is unfounded, then feel free to ignore my every word. But the problems have been articulated above and aren't singular issues, nor simple ones. And Projects are not without boundries or responsibilities. And LGR, when I say it won't "blow over", I mean I'm not here to blow some steam and then going away. What I am doing is allowing plenty of time for the members to make some actual changes to the project, and it surprises me that no one has. But the time for discussion here is about over. I've given examples above, and unless someone steps up and wants to actually bring the Project into what the community sees as "compliance" with neutrality, I have no choice. Some of us are known conservatives, and known to be anti-drama, so I am hoping no one thinks my (our) concerns are ideologically based or for a desire for process, because they aren't. I wouldn't be here unless I knew it was necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I went back and read your comments again in context. It still seems like a threat against this project of who some think, whether correct or not, feels a bias against them does exist. Heavy handed dialouge doesn't help, and only serves to give the project a black eye.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is Lionelt has sent out to invitations to like-minded people and his stated aim is "Countering liberal bias". He tags articles in which conservatives may have an interest, not just articles relating to conservatism. The overwhelming emphasis of these editors is on current events in the United States and they show little if any interest in articles about conservative ideologies, writers or historical figures. They mainly care about whether negative information should be included about Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin etc., the Republicans and the Tea Party. It would be as if a Communist were too invite fellow-Communists to remove anti-Communist bias not only in articles about Communism, but in articles about other political groups as well. TFD (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I’ve never seen that essay before….that’s just…lovely….absolutely lovely….RGloucester (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

While much of the advice is pretty simple stuff or benign, the very nature of the essay clearly demonstrates the "us vs. them" attitude that is inconsistent with Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Back when I was involved in the RFC, that was to be the first exhibit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Lionel's essay is entirely misunderstood. While it is indeed written from the perspective that there is a bias (I don't fully agree - if there is a bias, it is in quality and coverage, not tone, of articles), the basic gist of the essay is that, if there is indeed any liberal bias, the best process to use to combat it is by following basic Wikipedia policy - not edit warring or being combative. It argues that presenting reliable sources and boldly changing text viewed as biased are the best options. It also stresses that edit warring is not a good way to solve disputes and that following the bold, revert, discuss cycle is the best option - it also notes that, if discussion stalls, the dispute resolution noticeboard is the best option, while stonewalling is best handled at dispute resolution. Near the end, it lists common issues and remedies - for example, stating opinion as fact can be fixed by adding inline-text attribution, and criticism sections can be folded into narrative. It isn't as bad as it is made out to be, and it also isn't even in mainspace, nor is it in project space. Toa Nidhiki05 02:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I must state, I agree with what Toa Nidhiki05 has said, and what little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  has said. Perhaps the reason why others have sought to avoid this conversation as they may get wrapped up in the incivility, and the lack of good faith that appears to have been shown towards the wikiproject, some of its editors, and towards those who may have similar interest to the wikiproject but are not members of it. Furthermore, there maybe a fear that coming out as someone who has similar interest may subject that editor to persecution to those who may not share those same interest, or opposed to WP:NPOV if that means including (in a due weight manor) content that they may disagree with which is worded neutrally.

As I said before, if there are editors here, and elsewhere, that have the opinion that certain articles due not meet WP:NEU, perhaps it is best to address those concerns civilly, and assist those editors in addressing those concerns in a productive manor that can help improve Wikipedia as a whole.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This project has deflected, evaded, and ignored serious, good-faith concerns about its operation for more than a year. This page is currently full of civil, good-faith concerns about the way the project has functioned, along with suggestions for improvement. You can't just keep citing WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL as an alternative to actually grappling with other editors' concerns - although, granted, that's worked for more than a year. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been plenty of civil requests to counter you concerns with concrete, reasonable proposals or to discuss as well. Toa Nidhiki05 19:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I made one suggestion above - for the project to police itself a bite more proactively against the most common ways in which it's been abused. I think others have made suggestions as well, but really, people will only put effort into solving this problem if there's evidence that the project recognizes its existence. Otherwise, you're basically just asking us to fetch you a shrubbery. Let me turn it around: what do you, and the other project members, think should be done, if anything, to address the concerns that have been raised? MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for some menial, worthless, undefined task - I'm asking for concrete examples of issues and constructive, rational ideas on how to solve them. I think the issues raised have been, for the most part, extremely vague, with very few diffs. It isn't too much to ask for actual ideas or constructive input instead of vague assertations.

To start out with, any and all of the general ideas raised could easily be solved by minor solutions - by not allowing comments on the members page, by requiring all requests for input neutrally worded, etc. There are very few proposed concrete proposals of this type at the moment. The drastic (and I'd argue unwarranted) proposals such as indefinite blocks/topic bans for 'prominent members' (a vague example, for instance), merging with another project (also vague), and deletion simply do not demonstrate the good faith of their proposers - rather than offer compromise or give the project as a whole the benefit of the doubt, it gives the impression (true or not) that you all are out for blood and want to destroy, not reform. Toa Nidhiki05 20:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

About Lionelt's essay, let me try to explain why some of us find it concerning. It's true that the essay pretty much just states boilerplate about the standard correct practices for resolving POV disputes on Wikipedia. Insofar as that goes, there's nothing objectionable. However, the question then arises as to why one would need an essay pointing its readers to all of those policies and guidelines, when we already have so many other pointers to them. Seeing the context about the supposed liberal bias, the answer to that question appears to be that Lionelt intended the essay to be a guide for editors about how to counter that supposed bias according to Wikipedia's rules. And that's where the problem is. There is an implicit agenda of using the WikiProject to counter a particular perceived POV. But that agenda, of its nature, is one of favoring the opposing POV. In a sense, it's the epitome of "civil POV pushing". I realize that one can reply that countering a POV is just working towards NPOV, but the appearance, in full context, is not one of working towards NPOV, so much as working towards a US-conservative/Republican POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me show you another, similar example. Take a look at the editing history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References, where you will find two edits that I made, reverting edits that Lionelt made. In each case, his edits were to remove sources including The New York Times and The Washington Post from the list of reliable sources for the purposes of the Project. By any reasonable measure, those and similar periodicals are considered by the community as a whole to satisfy WP:RS for most kinds of political and governmental subjects. Why then would a WikiProject need to have a recommended source list that, deliberately, excludes those sources? I'm afraid that the only plausible answer is that Lionelt believed that, for this Project, the kinds of sources needed were different from what the community as a whole considers reliable sources – and that the sources needed for this Project's agenda need to be skewed towards US-conservative/Republican POVs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment regarding project scope and sources

As I've said elsewhere, I think we are, in general, best served when individual WikiProjects have a rather clearly defined scope, generally at least in part building on the earlier efforts of others. That can be seen as indicating, in general, that groups tend to center their focus on, and tag, those articles which either appear in other reference sources related to the topic, or are clearly related to those articles, such as biographies of individuals whose notability is most clearly tied to the topic of one of those articles or subarticles of those articles.

So, it might be useful to know what reference works exist. I went to WorldCat and found the following:

• Frohnen, Bruce, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffrey O. Nelson. American conservatism : an encyclopedia, Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2006.
• Miner, Brad. The concise conservative encyclopedia : 200 of the most important ideas, individuals, incitements, and institutions that have shaped the movement : a personal view, New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1996.

Now, I acknowledge that is a rather limited selection, but that is at least two sources which directly relate specifically to this topic, and I think, if this project is to remain active, it might be best to focus its efforts on the content which directly relates to the topics in those works. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't limit ourselves to one particular form of conservatism. We cover all types - British conservatism, Canadian conservatism, Australian conservatism, and yes, American conservatism. Out project has rejected numerous times the idea that we need to focus entirely on one type. We welcome constructive ideas, but with all due respect radical reduction in scope isn't going to happen. I will say, however, that both of these sources appear to place more emphasis on libertarian ideas in conservatism - this isn't a bad thing, we do cover libertarian conservatism, but a WikiProject on Libertarianism already exists. Toa Nidhiki05 19:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "isn't going to happen" from a single editor, who appears by that statement to be clearly stating not only that he is speaking for the group in a formal way, but also appears to be saying that, regardless of any other input, basically, what he says goes, could reasonably be seen as a huge problem which indicates that the opinion of one editor is, basically, law. I don't think this is the first time such behavior has been noticed. As per Tryptofish above, there is serious evidence that this project exists to engage in civil POV pushing, at least insofar as one editor's statements can be seen as being standard for the group. Personally, I am myself rather a conservative, and have no objections per se to seeing my own thinking appear here, but under the circumstances I begin to wonder whether the problems with this project, as apparently displayed by the conduct of what appears to be its current self-appointed spokesman, might even be grounds for deletion of something which seems to have, as one of its bases, the objective of somehow at least skirting policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Members, including the joining statements is rather telling. I've simply deleted rationales that were more neutral at WER, as it is our responsibility there to insure we don't promote a negative environment. Many here are clearly not interested in actual neutrality, demonstrated by their own words. The project is endorsing it by doing nothing. This is but one, tiny example, and certainly not the worse example here, but if they start with bias and it isn't objected to, there is little hope for what happens next. Most is fine, but statements like "I am interested in working on... propagating and defending the truth! " are textbook examples. Anytime I hear people say they are "defending the truth", my NPOV alarm goes off. That this is tolerated is inexcusable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Excess editing overlap in membership?

I examined the intersection of editors who are members of this project as a statistical exercise. I have used this tool in the past and found extraoridinary levels of interesction with some groups, but those levels are not found here - the intersection levels is nearly random as a matter of maths.

The only article found (after an hour of looking at "greates number of intersecting editors" using the "wikistalker" tool) with as many as 7 members editing it out of a subgroup of 10 was Fox News Channel. The editors involved who are members here are: Lionelt, Drrll, CWenger, Dezidor, ThinkEnemies, Instaurare, and The Four Deuces. Most articles show an overlap far lower indeed. I then looked at the "most active editors" on that page: Out of the top 20 editors on the page, CWenger accounted for 9 edits and Drrll accounted for 5 edits, out of a total of 481 edits on that page. In short - zero evidence on the page with the higest apparent intersection of editors and this project of any conceivable collusion in editing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not particularly relevant to our concerns. All it takes is three or four editors, whether formally members or just fellow travelers, to pile on to an article so as to create a local false consensus. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The concept of "evidence" is that it be actually existing. Making charges against any group of editors without providing any evidence whatsoever is contrary to ArbCom rulings in the past, and likely would be so in the future. I would popint out that calling any editor a "fellow traveler" may be a personal attack. I recall one editor who opined I'm bringing up three people at once, not because they're identical or all of their actions are synchronized, but because they're like-minded fellow travelers who have acted in concert, sometimes tacitly, sometimes (see below!) quite openly, to make things difficult for me. And I note also the responses thereto. The OP provided zero evidence, and the others there happened to notice the Emperor's state of dress. Thus when on a specific search to find evidence, and I found none of any collusion whatsoever, nor of any group of editors having interest in any specific article greater than one would expect by random chance, I posted my findings. If you can provide real and substantial evidence, please do so, I would be most appreciative to see that I missed something. If no evidence is given in the form of diffs showing collusion, or (as I tried to find) showing statistical evidence of members of this project showing any unuaual overlap in editing of articles, then we have a wondrously simple case of "IDONTLIKETHEMSOLETSHAVEBLOOD" which is not actually a valid argument on Wikipedia. And since you have been given stern warnings from well over a dozen admins of all philosophical stripes, I think it an eeensy bit more likely that they saw something. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, all you're doing is taking a claim nobody is making and disproving it. This is uninteresting. If you were to address the actual concerns, that would be a big step forward. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Collect has a point. If you want to say we are canvassing and colluding on articles, is it not unreasonable to ask for evidence that there is abuse of project resources for canvassing. Basically, to prove wrongdoing on the part of the project and get sanctions (which seems to be your ultimate goal), you need to show evidence that canvassing and collusion are happening on project space or with project resources. If you don't provide sufficient evidence, than the idea of sanctions becomes both unfounded and unlikely. If there isn't evidence for abuse of project space/resources you have are project members causing an issue, not the project as a whole, and that isn't really the same thing. As a a side note, 'fellow travelers' aren't even project members, so how do non-members somehow make the project bad? As Collect said, it seems to be an attack term designed to imply complicity with misbehavior.

In this case, Collect points out that the article with the highest intersection of project editors, Fox News Channel, only had seven members, and even they didn't comment too much. Regardless of reason or when the editors posted, most articles are far lower than that. That is pretty good evidence that there isn't widespread intersection of members on talk pages of tagged articles. Toa Nidhiki05 18:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Collect has no point because his methodology is suspect. Nobody claims that it takes a large number of WikiProject members to take control of an article, nor that the WikiProject acts alone as opposed to having non-members who follow its lead. He propped up a straw man just so he could shoot it down. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Can everyone stop, please? RGloucester (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Bickering isn't the solution and none of these metrics are the primary concerns to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to make a more general observation about how we should be examining alleged canvassing. There are two levels that are relevant here. One is whether or not the WikiProject, through its discussion pages or other modes of communication, is serving as a place where canvassing messages are posted. The other is whether, at a given page, editors are engaging in tag-team editing or other disruptive behaviors. The former is a legitimate issue for an RfC about the Project as a whole. The latter is really a matter of the conduct of the editors involved, and should be treated as such. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. The project's to-do list is a prime example of inappropriate project-level canvassing which has gone on for more than a year and a half ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) until it was addressed by DGG ([18]). There are also examples of groups of project members engaging in tag-team editing, but those are less relevant here, since they arguably might have happened regardless of the existence of the project. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps DGG was right to neutralize the statements made (and there were no objections to those actions), but adding links to watch changes in Conservative related content is reasonable within the scope of this wikiproject. Also, the past there was a discussion about possibly writing an anti-conservatism article so adding a WP:REDLINK for such a proposed is well within the scope. these allegations of canvassing I believe show bad faith of the wikiproject, and shows continued prosecution of the wikiproject and its members. I have proposed good faith solutions, but it appears that some users may not want to try those solutions, instead believing that it is in the best interest of wikipedia that this wikiproject or certain members of this wikiproject not be active on wikipedia (even if there is a view that some articles could use some assistance with NPOV that may fall within the scope of this wikiproject). If this is the case would that not create a systematic bias in wikipedia that may not include certain POVs to provide due weight or create consensus that support exclusion of content that may otherwise balance an article to assist it becoming more neutral?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confident that anyone capable of recognizing inappropriate canvassing will recognize those diffs as inappropriate canvassing. I'm not totally sure where you're going with your response, other than to reiterate for the thousandth time that anyone with concerns about this project must be acting in bad faith. MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't state I am making statements I am not stating. I never stated that DGG's comment was in bad faith. However, I have stated a possible solution to perceived issues, that also assumes good faith of editors who have POV concerns of content, thus directing those editors efforts towards a constructive manor that improves the project as a whole. Rather than seeing this (the initial concern) as a hammer which to reduce down editors who have POV concerns of content, or which to diminish this wikiproject, it can be a learning experience for all involved, and create new efforts which can address the concerns of those editors and improve the articles where those concerns exist, in the end a win win for all involved.

Assuming that editors who have POV concerns of content in certain articles of Wikipedia are ONLY here (this wikiproject or wikipedia as a whole) to push a POV (sometimes introducing balanced due weight content can help articles achieve neutrality, sometimes removing POV wording achieves neutrality, sometimes reducing existing POV content achieves neutrality, sometimes there is no change needed, there will always be different outcomes for different articles) does not assume good faith of the editor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Cow, Lionelt's essay wasn't about fixing all bias, just about making articles reflect less of the liberal POV. Or, to put it more bluntly, it was an essay on how to politely and successfully push the conservative POV onto political articles. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That is one interpretation of the essay, but thankfully not the only one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Have to say once more that these particular claims of canvassing are off as notifying editors of a specific bias is perfectly normal, especially when the bias is self-evident. In every one of those articles there is an obvious "liberal" bias that is in need of correcting and not noting this as the nature of the bias blunts the purpose of notification. Perhaps the notifications could be worded more neutrally, but failing to specify what kind of NPOV issues exist would be detrimental to addressing the problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot

Big edit-war and reversion problems with the above article. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, you've just been reported for edit-warring, so you came here to invite more troops to back you up. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS. Note the part of the guideline that says "(canvassers) may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary." Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I do believe you gentlemen are wrong, viz: "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion." Thank you for your attention, though. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

GeorgeLouis, I suggest you look at what the rest of this talk page is discussing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that selectively soliciting support here, and without even stating a premise, constitutes inappropriate canvassing. The point of seeking outside opinions is to get unbiased NPOV input. That's why the current issue was posted on BLPN. If this continues it will go to WP:AN next. Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That BLP is not currently marked as being "of interest" to the project posted on ... making the charge of CANVASS troubling, although I can see why it might end up being so marked. The other comments are simply water-roiling at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned by the fact that you are dismissing our reasonable concerns rather than accepting that there is, at the very least, the appearance of impropriety that needs to be dealt with. It seems to be part of a general attitude of denial. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

|} Actually, the request is neutrally worded, it's just not neutral in intent. He was reported for edit-warring to insert conservative POV, so he needed a plan B. Somehow, GeorgeLouis knew that the place to go when you wanted some conservatives to back you up is this project. Why is that? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Title. People equate WikiProjects with groups of editors upholding a certain viewpoint, when that simply isn't the case. Toa Nidhiki05 18:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to add some closure, despite Collect's protests to the contrary, the ruling on WP:3RRN is that GeorgeLouis was canvassing and that he had been edit-warring to violate WP:BLP. Whether he'll get blocked for it is less clear, as the report was stale. [19] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

When making asides about me, it would be nice if the asides were accurate. I stated that the possibility of CANVASS is troubling - and that it evidently did not work. Cheers -- but the penchant for errant comments about editors is also troubling. Collect (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If I was experiencing a situation (and needed like-minded editorial assistence) on an article about Clydesdales horses, I wuld go to Project:Horses. If the article was about Boa Constrictors, I'd go to Project:Snakes. That's why User:George Lewis came here, to canvas like-minded editors. What is the problem with admitting that?```Buster Seven Talk 18:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The crux is whether he sought other editors with an interest in the topic or likeminded editors who would support his insertion of a BLP violation. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, chaps. I specifically directed the attention of this group (which has been helpful to me in the past) to the Frank L. VanderSloot page, not to the complaint about "edit warring". I will accept any apologies you care to offer about your mistake. Sincerely, your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Good, I hoped it was a good faith request, not canvassing. :) Toa Nidhiki05 20:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You only came here after the 3RR report was filed, so I'll let that speak for itself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. Standing has forgotten about Assume Good Faith. Regrettable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

When seeking additional input For an editorial issue like the one we were dealing with, the appropriate place to go for a second opinion and neutral advice would be the BLPN or RSN. I in fact posted the issue to BLPN [20] and the EWN last night. A couple of hours later, an editor on BLPN looked into the case and removed the video;[21] then George came over here an hour or so later to canvass.[22] I fail to see how George exclusively seeking the advice of experts in conservatism fits with the examples above about seeking the advice of experts on snakes and horses. The issue we were dealing with (a video that contained slurs against third-parties and clearly violated WP:BLP) would not require expertise in conservatism, but rather expertise on BLP violations and reliable sources. The BLP violation was so clear cut that George should never have been involved in a revert war to begin with; the video was indefensible. The issue was so obvious that it didn't even require expert input; filing the notices was just a formality to get the video out of the article without having to resort to an edit war with George.

@User:Rhode Island Red. My point was that he came here to canvas for supportive comments (where he knew he might find an audience). Not expertise. Not advice. I agree with you that he came here to canvas.```Buster Seven Talk 19:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate way to solicit additional input is to clearly describe the editorial issue at hand (e.g., "is the VanderSloot/Heritage Foundation video suitable for inclusion...the concerns are X,Y,X") and provide a quote or a diff edit. George's vague petition ("Big edit-war and reversion problems with the above article") was nothing like that at all; it provided no details and seemed more like someone sounding a general alarm bell and calling for reinforcements, as StillStanding-247 pointed out. There's no way to spin this that doesn't translate to a WP:CANVASS violation, so instead of nagging people to apologize for having called out an act of canvassing,[23] George could have just apologized for having canvassed. I just hope it doesn't happen again lest the involvement of WP:AN be required. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am just flabbergasted at some of the invective above. The fact of the matter is I posted with the Conservative group because VanderSloot is a conservative. If my posting was not worded "properly," well, I am sorry about that, but I wanted to keep it short. Period. The end. (Until somebody wants to make this interchange even longer than it already is.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

US pro-life and right-to-life movements: distinct, same thing?

As part of working on User:Chaos5023/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, I would like some feedback from people who consider themselves reasonably expert on the history of anti-abortion political advocacy in the United States. Specifically, I have encountered assertions that the pro-life movement and right-to-life movement are meaningfully distinct entities, and also assertions that they're the same thing. Can anybody provide me with useful insight into the question of which is the case -- or even, if I may hope, references to support for either position in reliable sources? —chaos5023 (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any sources to support this, but to my knowledge the right-to-life movement opposes abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, war, and (sometimes) self-defense and killing animals. The pro-life movement is only opposed in principle to abortion, occasionally extended to oppose birth control pills and the like. To my knowledge, right-to-life activists tend to be more associated with the political left (mainly manifested in a wide array of ideologies ranging from pacifism to anarchism to social libertarianism), while pro-lifers tend to lean towards the political right (particularly conservatism) due to its support of capital punishment and the right to self defense on both a personal and collective/national scale. So basically, in theory all right-to-life activists would be pro-life, but not all pro-lifers would be right-to-life activists. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage live

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage is now a live RFC. It is now in its structure phase, where its arguments and options are refined before opinions are registered. Please participate! —chaos5023 (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Archives

Reading the talk page archives provides an interesting refresher course on the history of this project. It seems inevitable that some RfC-type action is forthcoming and getting a feel for where this project has been and what has been previously discussed may provide some valuable insight on how to proceed. The discusssions about "what the scope of the project should be" are very informative and thought-provoking and display encyclopedic concern on both sides. I would boldly suggest that anyone new to this project take the few hours necessary to investigate its talk page history. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Another historic site to consider reviewing is Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/News where the various issues of the project newsletter, The Right Stuff, are available. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"I am not a member"

I'm confused. Who are the members of this project that have been conversing in the above threads. The reason I ask is because there is an expressed declaration that only members can make decisions regarding the workings of this project. That would exclude almost all of the participants in the long and winding discussions above. Unless Ive lost count only two members have come forth and are willing to collaborate...User:Toa and User:RightCowLeftCoast. If there are more, please let me (and the other editors) know. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I must have missed where it was declared that only members can make decisions regarding this project, but if that is the case they are in error. The community at large has the final say, as evidenced by, for example, Esperanza, or for a less extreme outcome, the merger of the Intelligent design wikiproject into the Creationism wikiproject, to name just two. All projects must follow the 5 pillars and be of value to the project, or they will be changed, absorbed, or end. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been called a dick before, but I'm not a member. I've been asked to join this project, and I declined the invitation. Partly because I wasn't fond of the "joining" statements by some of the project memembers, and I don't want the association. But primarily, most of the topic areas they cover just don't interest me.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is that expressed?. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

E.g. Lionelt's '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' [24] et seq where, incidentally, the unequivocal battleground responses from Lionelt and Toa Nidhiki05 to requests for clarification of the project's scope prompted MastCell to observe (almost exactly a year ago) that the 'knee-jerk, blanket resistance to anyone who asks questions about the project's scope or aims . . . doesn't bode well for the project's future, nor reflect well on its current membership.' Writegeist (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Council Guide clearly states "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". Unlike what Buster implies, nobody here is using this to argue that outsiders can't give input or participate in decision-making. Rather, it means that outsiders cannot make any decision that would result in a change of the scope, as only the Project can define and change a scope. Toa Nidhiki05 16:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussions such as the one linked above demonstrate that certain vociferous members of the project misuse their membership status as a licence to vilify and attempt to drive off anybody who has the temerity to raise significant issues and request clarity about the scope etc. This gives a strong impression of a project built on a model that is primarily exclusive and hermetic rather than collaborative. I.e., collaborative only with editors who never question the project's scope, aims or processes. Writegeist (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

TN, the section you link to refers to tagging - that while it may be helpful for others to tag articles, the project may decide the articles are outside of scope, and that no one should remove a tag from a project of which they are not a member. However, this skirts, or rather misses, the question at hand, which is what the scope of this project is, and whether it is defined clearly; and the second question, of whether the project as a whole is a net benefit to the encyclopedia as the project currently exists. The editors of Esperanza were all strongly in support of that project, and yet it was shut down as a community decision. Many editors are raising concerns here which are not being answered, let alone being addressed. This is problematic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

But the fact remains it says it, quite clearly. The Project has the sole right to define their scope, including which articles will not be under their scope (and, by extension, which ones will be). Esperanza was entirely different in most respects - it wasn't a WikiProject and it suffered from a leadership cabal and a lack of openness. The fact that we have no leadership and are having this discussion right now is proof enough neither of these are issues.

As for the concerns, I've stated probably a dozen times my willingness to discuss. Not to toot my own horn, but I am a pretty active or prominent member here and I opened a thread up where I offered to answer and discuss any question, suggestion, or concern related to WikiProject Cosnervatism. As of now, that area has all of one response relating to the project (which I said I would be fine with, although nothing has come out of it yet) and another friendly one in response to a comment I made. Back on the 17th, I offered this:

I am open to logical suggestions as to how to resolve issues, as would most reasonable members. But I need concrete reasons, not vague assertions - simply put, give some example as to what the behavior is, why it is bad, examples of when it is happening, and what can be done to resolve it.

Now, that really isn't unreasonable - however, most of the comments here are simply giving the 'vague assertion' rather than concrete suggestions. Ideas such as deleting or de facto deleting the project are not only unreasonable at this juncture, as there are certainly alternatives, they are really hurtful to the users like myself that have been more than civil. We haven't gotten any concrete proposals or examples of bad users, and users like Still, who are expecting blood to be shed and want indefinite topic blocks all around, don't help discussion - not only are the suggestions outlandish and frankly hurtful, as we are not here to disrupt, but they show more of vagueness (ie. What is all around? Does it it include me? What does 'indef-ban' mean? Who is going to be 'decimated'?) that is simply not helping solve anything. Very few, if any, diffs have been presented - the vast majority of comments are instead claims without actual backing. That doesn't mean the proposed issues don't exist, it simply means it is the word of one person versus that of another. Claims of collusion, conspiracy to disrupt or insert bias, and attacks on either specific users or a much larger groups of editors have been repeated, but nothing has been presented to back them up. These claims are very large and the first two are quite serious charges, but yet nothing has been presented to support it.

There are plenty of well-meaning, decent enough folk here that are not asking for blood, but are actually discussing. I'll commend RGloucester and Tryptofish for being particularly willing to discuss. But we need people being constructive and reasonable, not make incendiary and (at the moment) unfounded claims. We are above name-calling and dirt-throwing. Toa Nidhiki05 20:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It is starting to look to me like the discussion on this talk page is, after a fashion, actually becoming a sort of RfC, albeit not by design. To the degree that it is, I think it's becoming one of "no consensus", in that editors who see problems with the project are saying what they (we) think those problems are, while the editors who support the project have mostly replied that they do not accept that these things really are problems. At some point, this kind of discussion becomes one where the community is failing to come to consensus, and ArbCom will end up having to resolve it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly a de facto RfC, which is why I haven't filed a de jure RfC, as there has been a large cross section of the community here, the civility has been reasonably acceptable, and it has actually been more on topic than most RfCs. Starting a separate process might have been less fruitful and more disruptive, honestly. That said, I'm starting to get to the same conclusion, that a consensus isn't likely to be forthcoming in spite of the overall good faith contributions, and have asked for outside advice on how to proceed. This should not stop anyone from continuing to discuss, and who knows, maybe some common ground can be found. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If your notion of consensus involves people like Toa and RCLC agreeing, then I agree we'll never see one. However, what's important is a consensus of the community, not just the members of this project. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Toa: I have noticed what might be seen as an almost obsessive insistence on your part that specific diffs be provided. Unfortunately, it is not the case that they are required. If such are requested, however, I think it is enough that on this particular page you yourself have repeatedly called for some "independence" of this project which does not now, and according to wikipedia policies and guidelines, never has existed. The fact that at least you as an individual seem to be in some of your own comments here demanding that this group have a degree of autonomy to counter some claims of "systemic liberal bias," on the part of the rest of wikipedia, which has itself also not been supported by any diffs, can and does indicate that this group can and very likely does itself fail to abide by WP:CIV, and particularly WP:AGF, on the part of all those editors who, apparently, may think that the members of this group have in some way a greater claim to the truth than anyone else. Also, I have noticed, as have others, that some of the actions here and elsewhere, such as the removal of the L.A. Times as a reliable source, when it clearly is one, is evidence. Evidence has been presented, even if it does not meet the specific demands placed on it by one editor. There is some reason to believe, based on some of the comments here and links provided here, that, in a sense, one of the reasons for this group possibly from the very beginning was perhaps to push POV. This has been demonstrated. It is not necessarily the case that a group which seems to have specifically been created to skirt policies and guidelines has to be demonstrated to do so. I think many independent editors have come to this conclusion already, and I believe that, if this matter were to be taken to ArbCom or elsewhere, they would probably reach the same conclusion. I even suppose this matter could be taken there, if some insist. However, if something clearly has been created to counteract a "systemic bias" on the part of those who do not agree with the personal opinions of its editors, that is itself more than sufficient cause for concern that this group was at least in part created for the purpose of itself pushing a POV.

I personally believe that the probable cause for systemic bias on the part of those who support this group has already been demonstrated. On that basis, I think that it is reasonable to conclude that this group, as it currently exists, itself has to demonstrated some of the good faith its members seem to be insisting be shown them, even if the history of the group itself indicates that they may not have the same good faith in others. It has been suggested above that a WikiProject Politics would not have these problems. I acknowledge that individual editors associated with this group should receive the assumption of good faith that is more or less required of all of us editors until and unless evidence to the contrary has been presented. However, it is another matter entirely to acknowledge that this WikiProject as an entity seems to have been, probably from the beginning, to a degree created to counteract a presumptive "systemic bias" which has not itself been demonstrated, or, rephrased, it has taken as writ the unsubstantiated opinions of some of its individual editors. Those opinions seem to have been possibly not in accord with AGF.

There is some reason to think that this WikiProject may have been effectively broken from the beginning. If it has, then it is not reasonable to demand that something which has had flawed assumptions at its core be assumed to have good faith, when the WikiProject itself seems to have failed to do the same for basically everyone else associated with wikipedia. If it was flawed from the beginning, the best thing to do would be to scrap the inherently flawed structure, and start anew with something that does not have such problems, like the WikiProject Politics proposed above. In all honesty, at this point, I think it would make more sense if some editors associated with this group addressed that point directly. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If there is a problem and it is big, it should be pretty easy to support your claim. If this is actually an RfC, evidence would be expected to be used to indicate a problem. People are making some very major claims here - collusion, conspiracy to violate WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, tag-team edit warring, etc. Asking for some proof is not unreasonable. Further, I've said I do not agree with the idea there is a liberal bias, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that I did. I'll reiterate - if you want to make major claims to promote a drastic solution, you had better have some evidence. We don't block people over hunches or feelings, nor do we delete pages off of opinion or rhetoric.If there is indeed systematic flaws and bias, you shouldn't have an issue finding evidence. What you are promoting is indeed a deletion of this project, and I doubt the community would support massive changes without evidence. As always, I'm more than willing to entertain suggestions or constructive ideas in the thread I created. Toa Nidhiki05 23:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It has already been demonstrated. I believe it would be in the interested of some editors to read WP:CIVILITY and related material, including WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And I am frankly appalled that any single editor has shown the presumptuousness, as you have done above, to apparently demand taht other editors act in accord to their own wishes. I might point out that, in instances where there has been demonstrated violation of conduct guidelines, including those mentioned above and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, there can be and is a reasonable cause to bring in the Arbitration Committee to address those conduct matters. I very sincerely hope that the above editor reads the pages I linked to. And, lastly, I would point out that, despite the possible arrogance of the comment above, it is not the place for any single editor to "entertain" comments of others. I personally believe the above comment can be seen as demonstrating at least some misapprehensions regarding policies and guidelines, and I very sincerely urge the editor above to review relevant policies and guidelines, which apply here as well. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me - we have editors here demanding the project get shut down, or that users be indefinitely blocked, and you attack me for suggesting some evidence should be given first as if I am making some unreasonable, horrible request? I'm not demanding anyone present anything, I'm requesting it civilly - and to me, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. You can argue that "the debate is over", but there has not been any formal or informal presentation of evidence (a requirement for RfC/U and a good idea for this de facto RfC), and if this is indeed becoming a de facto RfC than we need to treat it as such. I'm not sure why you are appalled by that, frankly.

Further, I'm not some noob - I've been here since 2008. I am well aware of policy, and it isn't civil to shove it in my face as if I don't know it. I would kindly ask you refer to me by some variation of my name rather than 'the editor'. I've been around here long enough to know those rules, and it simply isn't nice to imply that I don't. I've tried my best to hold to the utmost civility here, and I would ask you do the same.

Finally, I'm pretty much the most active member here and I have offered to entertain any comments on behalf of the project, in lieu of broader comments from the project. So far, there aren't many people who have taken me up on it, but nobody has taken offense to the idea that I offer to listen and engage in good-faith discussion with concerned editors. As for 'entertain', maybe its my fault that I know enough about my language to use 'entertain' in the sense of extending hospitality or contemplate, but when I am saying the same thing it gets boring using the same words over and over. Toa Nidhiki05

• Wikipedia:PROJGUIDE#OWN is specifically for the issue of editors adding or removing banners for wikiprojects when the project members disagree about whether it's in or out of scope. I think it's clear, with common sense, that the guideline doesn't extend to wikiprojects where the community at large has concerns. If you want to arbitrarily insist on it, then we would have some silly bureaucracy where people join the project for the duration of a comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Where does it specify it? You are distracting from the actual text. There is no qualifier in it saying 'only relating to banners', it simply states that the WikiProject has the exclusive right to define their scope, and that "if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article". That is pretty clear to me. Toa Nidhiki05 23:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Toa, guidelines are just that: guidelines. They aren't law, they aren't precedents we can point to and say "hey, it's in there so we have to do it!" They apply 99% of the time, but it appears there is a consensus here that this is the 1% of the time when it doesn't apply. Ultimately it doesn't matter what any guideline or policy says so long as there is a consensus that something different has to be done. Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Sædon^talk 00:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course they are guidelines, but guidelines are generally good to follow. Toa Nidhiki05 01:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Active Members participating in discussions

1. User:Toa Nidhiki05
2. User:RightCowLeftCoast
3. User:Binksternet
4. User:The Four Deuces

comments

Being a "member" of a wikiproject seems to be an arbitrary distinction. Anyone can add or remove their name from any project list within a matter of seconds; having added ones name should not confer extra weight to their arguments or opinions, nor should weight be subtracted for failing to have their name listed. If anyone disagrees with me I will happily add my name to WP:C's list and then restate my argument verbatim for their satisfaction ;). Sædon^talk 20:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say someone is a de facto member if they contribute on the talk page here a lot (even if they don't like the idea of being in a wikiproject). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that no WikiProject is in any way, shape, or form independent of Wikipedia itself. Anyone can be, and is, free to edit anything at any time, barring protection and the like. WikiProjects are and always have been simply ways editors with similar topics of interest can get together and develop related content. They do not, and never had, had any authority beyond that. Therefore, the simple fact that an individual has added their name to one particular page is not, and never has been, of any particular importance in determining how existing wikipedia policies and guidelines should apply or be applied. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. I've said all along that, while the project is problematic, this stems from only some of its official members and also from some who are not officially members but constitute a group of fellow travelers.

While I'm here, I'd like to offer a data point. Just now, an editor canvassed Lionelt to help on a conservative-related issue.[25]. To be specific, this person is edit-warring to suppress "negative" information about pray-away-the-gay conversion therapy and needs help keeping their changes against consensus and policy. Note how Lionelt was recognized as the clearing-house for vote stacking and edit-warring by one of his own. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose someone could join just to vote and then leave because they have no interest in working in the project, but I think that would be gaming the system a bit. Toa Nidhiki05 23:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The larger point is that the community as a whole has an interest in everything that every project does at some level. "Joining" doesn't bestow any privileges and you can't really exclude anyone from participating in good faith in any poll. Joining any project is a symbolic sign of good faith that provides some metrics but no special favors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the guide disagrees. Members of the project are given a number of rights that outsiders don't have in regards to tagging and voting. Toa Nidhiki05 01:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Outsiders? What is this..A Glee Club? Democracy, American Democracy anyway, requires ongoing negotitions between those voters on the Right and those on the Left. But it seems that the growing confidence of the defenders of this project leads some to believe that there is no need for compromise. The door is always open for a consensus conversation or an edit discussion to go downhill, to decline, to become a brawl. Especially when both sides KNOW that they are right, that the truth is on their side. All editors are easily biased toward their own beliefs and away from those that deviate too far them (their opponents beliefs). Of course, they never acknowledge that as fact. In fact, their beliefs are always inherently provisional. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That is part of the problem, the belief that attaching your name to a virtual piece of paper bestows additional benefits and privileges not granted to the community as a whole. We aren't talking about putting project tags on articles, we are talking about the ability to comment and effect change in the behavior of the virtual Project itself. I will leave that question to be answered in a larger discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Time to move on to solutions?

There's been a massive amount of discussion regarding issues with WP:C recently, and especially so if you also count the discussions that took place ~ a year ago. Is it time to start moving on to proposed solutions?

I'd like to get that discussion started with a couple of ideas (note that I don't have a lot time to spend so I won't be too involved with discussing these ideas but want to propose them nonetheless):

1. Since there has been a decent amount of discussion about WP:C being de facto used for canvassing, I propose that a banner/disclaimer be placed at the top of talk making it very clear to newcommers that WP:C is not a collection of conservatives, but rather a collection of wikipedians who collaborate on improving articles about conservatism. I know right now there is a template buried within some others that states that WP:C has no POV, but perhaps making it more prominent and adjusting the language to address canvassing, as well as strengthening the POV statement, would help. It may also be beneficial to point out that consensus is note a vote.
2. I think it's pretty clear based on the consensus of outside editors that Lionel's essay is inappropriate and recommend it go to MFD, or better yet that Lionel simply G7's it (I realize he's been on a rather convenient hiatus since discussion started so I'm not expecting this, but it would be a very good gesture in the right direction). Some general points in the essay are fine and a new page with neutral titles/language likely wouldn't be a problem.
3. This is less a solution but more a suggestion: I think a piecewise RFC should be conducted regarding the scope of the project. I and other editors have demonstrated some evidence that the scope is problematic but I think this should be discussed by a much wider audience, including non-American conservatives, in order to find a consensus (IOW I don't think it's gonna happen here).

That's about all I have right now. Thoughts? Sædon^talk 00:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding point 2, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's astonishingly interesting. I will read through it when I have a bit more time and try to figure out whether it was a good consensus or not. If not then round 2 might be in order. Sædon^talk 00:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

We might also consider deleting Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Again, I've asked for outside opinions and suggest waiting a few days for those answers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I would ask that, instead of postulating what to do, we wait for Dennis to receive his answers. This will be more productive. RGloucester (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

While we wait, I'd like to comment. I don't think that cosmetic changes to this project will do anything but delay the inevitable, so I'd rather deal with the issue of scope and inherent bias today, not in six months. Fundamentally, conservatism is not a singular thing when you consider both American and non-American meanings, and if we're really just talking American, we should refocus on politics as a whole, not just one branch. A WikiProject American Politics would, by design, bring in liberals, conservatives and others under the big tent, and would resist abuse for canvassing because of this mixed composition. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully support that solution as the best remedy to the problem. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I as well. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to rain on anyone's parade - but so far there is zero evidence of any collusion among members of the project at hand. None. Nada. Zilch. What we do have is an IDONTLIKEIT chorus of people who iterate their charges over and over and over. I would suggest reading User:Collect/Collect's Law as being informative to anyone reading the walls of text on this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Collusion isn't exactly what I was claiming. A fundamentally flawed design and scope leading to an endorsement of "reverse bias" in articles, causing them to be rather bipolar? That is part of the issue, but only part. Others have different issues as well, but I can't speak to their opinions or motivations, only my own. If my problems was simply a few users, I have the tools to deal with that without requiring a full blown discussion, and I would have. No, this is a bigger problem than a few editors, and the issue is larger than this one Project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, show us specifically where there is a endorsement of "reverse bias" in articles. That would be a good starting point, because it is a position I doubt anyone would support.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That attitude is pandemic in this project, as I outlined in detail with diffs here. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make a case that this project or its editors are using a reverse bias then the burden is on you to provide some specific text. Asking me or anyone else to sift through the pages and pages of text and to magically find the offending text which confirms such reverse bias is unreasonable. If you want to convince the community at large about this reverse bias, you are going to have to roll up your sleeves, grab some scissors and show some text. You will notice my overuse of bold for reverse bias. Showing me text where some editors consider wikipedia to have a perceived liberal bias doesn't correlate to editors endorsing using reverse bias. If you think that some editors perceive wikipedia to have a liberal bias being a problem, that's a different discussion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Several days ago, I did roll up my sleeves and present the specific text you're requesting (hence the single diff). I sort of feel like I'm being asked for a shrubbery here, but I'll repeat myself. I think that anyone looking at TParis' chart, Lionel's essay, the reasons given by many editors for joining the project, the project's own to-do list ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30]), or the list of project-approved ideologically agreeable sources will recognize that the project not only takes for granted the existence of a "liberal bias", but is dedicated to "countering" it. MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And just what is liberal bias? Is it like pornography, you know it when you see it? How can the project counter something that can't be identified or explained? Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, my chart was a question in itself to help with my understanding of this project's intentions. I'm not representing the project with it. I'm not part of the project, I'm not one of it's supporters, nor interested in the slightest in it. Dennis pointed me here and I noticed a bit of cross-confusion in the discussion that caught my interest and I wanted to explore it. Please do not point to me as evidence of anything here and take my chart for what it was: a question for clarification.--v/r - TP 01:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please then clarify what you mean by liberal bias. Feel free to rely on a published definition if you like. When you do, I think you'll discover that your chart violates NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please then clarify what you mean by 'clarify'. In fact, please clarify every word in your three sentences, I'm not sure any of them agree with my understanding. Your request is ridiculous. The chart is a question. There is no meaning behind it. I was literally saying "This is what I think this project means to say." There is nothing more to the chart than that. If you gather anything else from it, you gather wrong.--v/r - TP 03:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I asked a reasonable question about your chart and received a hostile, unreasonable reply. You're not required to participate in this discussion, but if you do, please do so in good faith. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You implied things about my character and have been all week. If you wish for a polite response, don't do that. I've just as critical on hardline conservatives as I am on liberals (or if you prefer, the left and right). I feel accused of siding with the project when all I did was try to understand their purpose.--v/r - TP 14:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I implied nothing about your character in this discussion and everything about the definition of liberal bias in use. In fact, I wasn't even talking to or about your chart (which uses the definition) until you responded to me. I'm getting the sense that you are bringing a lot of baggage to this discussion because I haven't been talking about you personally here or anywhere else for that matter. My point is that we can trace a lot of the problems under discussion to the definition of liberal bias. That definition, namely one that defines an alleged bias in the media, isn't compatible with neutral editing. Viriditas (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

@MC I clicked on one of those diffs at random, of which reads ... many disputes about negative label made by left-wing group in the of the article. Now where exactly in that text is the call for using a reverse bias? The other diffs are similar. The chart by TP can be summarized that the project is not trying to remove liberal bias by inserting conservative bias, but by removing the bias. Not by balancing liberal bias with conservative bias. Viriditas makes a good point. Bias is like porn, you do know it when you see it. I for one am not saying wikipedia is infested with liberal bias. Some in this project may feel otherwise. If you think that should be subject to an RFC, fine. But this is a much different claim that this project aims to fight bias with bias.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone can show actual edits to articles by project members that are clearly linked to the WikiProject then I see no basis for demanding solutions. You can't just repeatedly say there's a problem, without ever proving there is a problem, and then demand a solution to the alleged problem you keep saying exists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There have been postings here about the supposed neutrality of articles such as the southern strategy, you didn't build that, Barack Obama, Bush tax cuts, the First Amendment, Andrew Breitbart, List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups, and Mark Steyn. Most of the conversation has been about what is the purpose of the project. Supporters claim we should ignore these attempts to change the POV because they were ineffective. But we should look at what was intended rather than what was achieved. Why did no member close these discussions as improper? How can we tell if any editors entered those discussions because they found out about them from this page? Will such attempts be successful in future? What else does the project do? TFD (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

And? What you claim is how all wikiprojects work - they get added eyes on articles. Unless and until you can demonstrate with evidence that anything at all contrary to the Five Pillars has occurred you are whistling in the wind. As for "interesting" articles on Wikipedia (not under this project) I commend people here to read [31] (archive of a deleted article) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Capitalist_regimes and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_capitalist_regimes_(2nd_nomination) show the opinions of those defending that article. I suggest, in fact, that that article had major endemic POV issues. In short - major POV issues do exist on some articles, and it is reasonable to use NPOV to ensure balanced and proper encyclopedia articles. That is why WP:NPOV is not negotiable. Collect (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

So you think it is fine for a person to set up a project, invite self-declared conservatives to join, many of whom had troublesome editing histories including blocks for edit-warring, and have them post about articles they think have an anti-conservative bias. To me, a neutral approach would be to invite anyone who showed an interest in the topic, and post all NPOV disputes, including where editors claimed there was a pro-conservative bias. Don't understand the purpose of your example, which AFAIK was not discussed here. An article critical of Communism was kept, while a similar article critical of liberalism was deleted. TFD (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT historically -- all wikiprojects have an editor who first proposes them. As for who joins - Wikipedia does not allow wikiprokects to operate on an invitation-only basis, so your aspersions that some members have had blocks is irrelevant utterly. Cheers - please simply deal with improving this wikiproject, which is a proper function of this talk page. Collect (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I can and do, to a degree, see that a separate group relating to "conservatism" might be useful. However, I also acknowledge that this WikiProject has abundant problems, and that a group on "American politics" or potentially Australian politics, British politics, Canadian politics, and, for that matter, a "politics" subgroup of most national projects might be more useful. It has already been indicated that this group has had, from the very beginning, clear difficulties in determining exactly what its scope is. Those problems have seemingly never been adequately addressed, despite having been raised repeatedly from the very beginning of the group, and that failure on the part of the group and its members remains a serious problem. Comments on this page by the "spokesmen" for the WikiProject have also indicated that they have no interest in addressing those problems, and to my eyes a rather obvious attempt on the part of some of them to try to deflect attention from that issue. One of the first requirements for any WikiProject is that it be functional, and this apparently almost adamant refusal on the part of its defenders to do anything to help make it so is a serious problem, and one that ultimately raises very serious questions about whether this WikiProject, as it exists, is really capable of doing what all editors and WikiProjects should do, which is help build an encyclopedia. It also raises serious questions about some degree of OR or SYNTH on the part of the WikiProject itself, and WikiProjects are not exempt from policies and guidelines either.

Now, I can see, probably within the structures of the various national and regional WikiProjects, and maybe shared with WikiProject Politics, a possibility of one or more subprojects devoted to "conservatism" in that country. There are media which are either self-described or described by others as "conservative" media in many countries, many of which are associated with multinationals of some sort, and it would be in the interests of the encyclopedia to have some group developing content related to that subject and those articles. And although I am not certain of this, I do get the impression that at least some various parties or lists in various countries within Europe and other international cooperation zones of various sorts which might be broadly described as "conservative" are beginning to perhaps work more closely together within those broader frameworks, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to have some focused attention to content related to those articles and topics.

And, as others have already said, there is an extremely serious question about the tone of this project. Lionel's userspace essay could be seen by some individuals who are not conservative POV pushers as being a virtual declaration of intent to circumvent policies and guidelines. Having such a page prominently linked to by this project, seemingly from its beginning?, would very likely alienate any individuals who are not tied to conservative ideology. Other indicators on the project's pages might do the same thing. That being the case, there is clear reason to think that this project has at least indicated to potential members that it's goals are to circumvent the rules here, and no WikiProject has the right to try to circumvent policies and guidelines just because they don't like them. Nor should it be seen as being potentially biased in any way, shape, or form.

But, ultimately, at least so far as I can see, this WikiProject and its dedicated members have, basically, failed to address, from the group's founding, fundamental questions regarding scope, definition of terms, and questions of rather clear bias on the part of some of its pages. Policy and guidelines do not like such things. If a group cannot get its act together after over a year of having questions raised, there is a very serious question whether it will ever be able to do so, or contribute in a neutral, non-biased way to the encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a member of, and frequently work on articles within WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, which already exists. This project is definitely a loose grouping, but I’d say that there is very useful collaboration to be found there. I’ve never found a problem with bias there, and, the project as a whole is really focused on writing from a “historical” perspective. By nature, it requires a political scientist’s approach, because of its name. What is more important, though, is that the project has a few bedrock users who make tons of contributions and who patrol for any problems, bias include. I’m surprised that there isn’t an American politics project (I assume that WikiProject Politics may have been originally formed with the US in mind, only to be expanded later). There is an American government project, but, of course, that does not focus on politics. So, perhaps an American politics project should be formed. HOWEVER, I don’t really believe this is a solution to the problem here. We would need editors interested in forming the project, and willing to work for it. Will anyone here be willing? I wouldn’t be so sure… RGloucester (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing forbidding an editor, let alone a member such as yourself, from noting on this WikiProject that an article may need to be corrected for conservative bias. If members were stating that only instances of liberal bias could be noted here that would be one thing, but there is nothing indicating that to be the case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this comment gives a lot of food for thought. We know in our guts that no one will come to this Wikiproject for help with right-wing bias, because, if anything, this will make the problem worse. We know this because of the way the project was set up, and by the comments made by the members. This Wikiproject is de facto a canvassing group for a political position in a way that Wikiproject Biography, Wikiproject History or more relevantly Wikiproject UK Politics, is not. FurrySings (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• My view is that

1. The proper goal of a topical wikiproject is to work on an area, not impose an attitude. Those who wish to balance articles have a common interest, a different interest than those who wish to balance those articles which do not adequately reflect their own positions. To the extent that the project wishes to remove a certain kind of bias, it is antithetical to the purposes and working methods of WP.
2. Interest in a subjet is a reasonable basis for an project, but it is better if the subject is not defined in such a ways as to encourage bias. Defining it in terms of a particular political tendency is tricky .
3. Defining it in a indistinct way is not helpful. The political trend conservatism only makes sense as a unifying topic when dealing with current politics in the US.
4. Some of the present people active in the project do not accept the fist point.

I cannot say I really know what to do about it. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, it makes perfect sense as a topic even if it doesn't involve just U.S. politics. There are many self-defined conservative parties, whether one thinks of them as fitting into one specific mold or not, and they often share many of the same tendencies. When it comes to bias, unless the WikiProject's goals involve actively slanting articles towards a conservative bias then there is nothing inherently wrong with members focusing on removing a specific form of bias. Many editors police article content for a single type of bias without slanting the article in favor of their own opinions. However, as I said, editors and members can just as easily focus on other biases if they so choose. Nothing binds them to only notifying project members of "liberal" bias.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• The parties that have most in common with what members of the project consider to be conservative are in Europe generally described as right-wing populist and generally reject conservatism, which they see as elitist and statist. TFD (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts before church.....

• Lionelt's essay set the intellectual agenda for this project. Fight Liberal Bias wherever you find it!
• Editors captured the leadership of this project in order to control and mold public opinion, not to improve Wikipedia.
• Lionelt sought out and groomed like-minded editors. Troublesome, contrary-thinking editors were not welcome: they were getting in the way of the agenda. No outsiders allowed!
• Mindset: Since liberal bias is so very prevelant and dominates the landscape of Wikipedia, why shouldn't conservative-minded editors reverse the process?
• Goal: Re-shape the possible interpretation of articles by readers to prevent the growth of liberal/left/progressive reader manipulation. Protecting the conservative belief over-rides improving the encyclopedia.

```Buster Seven Talk 14:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Except you are a member TFD so if that is not what you consider to be conservative then your statement is false. I also note some members are from Europe and so they would presumably also not be covered by your statement. Honestly, I think your assessment of political ideology is off, but no matter. As a member you can certainly correct the issues you see yourself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I did not say all members. So why did Lionelt choose to include right-wing populist parties, such as UKIP and the Swiss People's Party in the project? TFD (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think it is silly to complain about how this WikiProject is oriented when you are clearly an active member who is interested in the subject and would be more than capable of creating the change in project behavior that you are seeking. What are you waiting for exactly?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

After reading the comments made since I last edited here on the 2nd, it appears that the conversation has once again devolved into an effort to either A) limit/change the scope of the wikiproject, or b)disband the wikiproject or to move towards efforts to inhibit the editing of certain editors. Others have attempted to propose solutions, and answer questions as to the wide scope of the wikiproject, or to state that POV concerns have been addressed or that there is a more civil and suitable way to address concerns of POV in articles that may fall into the scope of this wikiproject. May I suggest that we focus on implementing a system to address concerns of POV that fall within the scope of this wikiproject, to focus those editors who have those concerns so it can be fruitful for all editors involved in the effort to improve wikipedia as a whole.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I see the solutions suggested not as devolution but moving forward. The project cannot continue to operate within its defined scope because that scope was always poorly defined. In practice, the project served as a springboard for promoting American conservatism in politics, with only lip service offered to non-US topics. As others have observed, a partisan us-vs-them scope cannot be condoned at Wikipedia. So here we are looking to move the project forward by renaming it under a new scope, or some other solution. Keeping it at its old status quo is a non-starter argument. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Same can be said of other political wikiprojects or task forces, yet I am not aware that those projects or task forces have been so heavily scrutinized as we have seen here. Furthermore, I do not see why my proposed solution of having individuals (regardless of political opinion/bias/affiliation) who have a political POV concern of an article state their concern in a neutral location, have their concern reviewed, and addressed. This creates a win-win where the individuals editors efforts are directed in a constructive manor, the wider community is made aware of any perceived biases of content, and good faith is preserved.

This directs those editors here who may seek to improve WP:NEU of wikipedia to not focus their energy here, which we (the members) have said is not the primary focus of this wikiproject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, I have to wonder if the lack of scrutiny of other political wikiprojects is due to the nature which conservatives are viewed by non-conservatives. That is, it has been opined by others that conservatives are viewed as evil (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). If conservatives are evil, then it makes sense that anyone who maybe evil, although they have have the best interest of Wikipedia at their heart of their actions, will always attempt to inject POV, will always attempt to disrupt wikipedia, and will always be a net negative to Wikipedia as a whole; therefore, those involved in wikiprojects labeled as conservative, who are self-described conservatives, or who defend conservative views, their actions should be scrutinized.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If anyone has diffs of editors on Wikipedia saying that conservatives are evil, that would be a very significant point. However, the fact that such statements get made in the media has to be considered in the context that such slurs are directed in pretty much every direction, including by conservatives at liberals. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion for a few days but hadn't stepped in as I didn't have anything to add. You have asked why other politics projects don't get the same level of scrutiny, so I will respond using the UK Politics project as an example. The comments on the page so far seem to list the following concerns:

1. The project's scope is unclear; editors cannot work out how broad or narrow your remit is. 2. Your definitions of liberal and conservative are unclear; most UK conservatives would be seen as liberal Americans, so it is hard to tell what your intentions are for articles outside of a US context. 3. The project founders have encouraged an ethos of breaking Wikipedia policy by countering one type of bias with another. 4. There is a suggestion that new members who question the ethos are shouted down or made to feel unwelcome. 5. There is a suggestion above that an attempt was made to remove citations to a reliable source (because the source was seen as liberal?).

In terms of the UK project: 1. We have a clearly defined scope with specific boundaries of what we don't cover. 2. The issue of international definitions do not arise as we are a national project. 3. The UK project encourages collaboration with related projects and offers advice in-line with existing policy. 4. All members are welcome to join the UK politics project, which helps to prevent bias; we have a mix of left and right wing editors along with a healthy dose of non-partisans who are just interested in adding verified facts. That helps to provide internal scrutiny so no single group of editors can take the project off the rails. 5. I am not aware of the UK Politics project attempting to label a published newspaper as entirely unreliable - the quality of the sourcing is judged on a claim-by-claim basis.

If there is a project to help improve articles on UK Conservatism then I will be happy to work with it. However your scope and definitions need to be clear and you have to ditch any suggestion of bypassing policy. If the policy is wrong then change it, don't avoid it. Road Wizard (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I tire of people coming here to say "conservatives in the UK would be seen as liberals in the United States" because it is simply not the case. They might be seen as moderate conservatives or big government conservatives, but they sure as hell would not be seen as liberals.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

So, would conservatives in the United States support gay marriage (or at that very least civil partnerships), abortion rights, a government-run national health service and hospitals, a national insurance program, state-planned railways (such as HS2), the European Union and more? And if we went even further, from UK to a devolved country like Scotland, then you have a “conservative" standpoint that is far, far, to the left of anything in the United States. British conservatives, on many levels, are more “left-leaning” (on the American political spectrum) than most American Democrats. RGloucester (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a point that I think most of my fellow Americans, particularly the younger ones, don't understand. We Americans use the word "conservative" differently than most everyone else, and it means different things to different Americans, for that matter. That isn't the primary problem here, obviously, but it is one issue that causes confusion. This Project isn't at all what I expected it would be until I came here. It is almost more like Project Republican Party. I've probably voted for at least as many Republicans as Democrats over the years, so it isn't meant to be insulting, just an observation that the focus is very US and Republican centric. When I think "Conservative", I personally tend to think more of Libertarians (and yes, I've voted for plenty of them as well), which is obviously not the focus here. This is what I think needs to get across, that many of us that see problems here would call ourselves Conservatives, so it isn't a Liberal vs. Conservative concern, it is about keeping Wikipedia free of political bias, accidental or otherwise. This also means we need to take a more "world view" in our naming conventions, to prevent confusion. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to think Conservative is the same as conservative. Support for gay marriage is definitely not a conservative view in the UK. I was thinking that the real problem was people thinking the Conservative Party in the UK determines what conservative means in the UK and using the views of that party's current leadership as an ideological barometer. Things don't work that way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Conservative is “conservative" as far as the UK is concerned. UKIP is not “conservative”, and neither is the BNP. Who is conservative in the UK if not the Conservative Party? The British Conservative Party is the ORIGINAL conservative party, the home and root of all conservative ideology. If it isn't “conservative", I don't know what is. RGloucester (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You appear to have misread my earlier comment. I said most conservatives in the UK would be seen as liberal Americans. Most conservatives in the UK are part of the Conservative party but there are also smaller parties like UKIP and even some religion-based parties. While some of the members of the Conservative party and many members of the fringe parties (who are not often elected) would sit quite well in the ranks of the American Republicans on most issues, the majority would either fit within the ranks of the American Democrats or even be slightly to the left of them. A small fringe of left-wing UK conservatives would perhaps be seen as almost socialist just as there is a small fringe who are extremely right wing - in any measurement scale you will have people at either end of the spectrum with the majority somewhere in the middle. It just happens that the mid-point for UK conservatives seems to be generally more to the "left" of the mid-point for American conservatives.

That is a slightly simplified argument as I am talking in terms of a single left-right scale of conservatism (where in reality there are several scales to consider). However this project does not define the different scales here or how it will view and react to them, so I am on fairly solid ground using an overly simplified scale. As I said before, explanations of what this project sees as conservatism would be very welcome and avoid confusion. Road Wizard (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

American conservatives call themselves that because in the 1930s the president said that his supporters were liberals and his opponents were conservatives. Twenty years later they picked up the slur and "liberal" became a slur. But that has nothing to do with the distinction between liberals and conservatives anywhere else. Some foreign liberals may be considered conservatives in the US, while some conservatives may be considered liberal. Right-wing populists are considered to be conservative in the US although they do not consider themselves to be that because they oppose elitism and support limited government. TFD (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a WikiProject United States politics, as has been suggested by others, but that should be separate from this Wikiproject. This wikiproject can retain it's original scope of improving articles that fall under conservatism (in its various forms) and those related to it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe as a first step to breaking the deadlock, project members could define what "conservatism (in its various forms)" means for this project? A list of the various types of conservatism you think are covered by the project will at least help outside editors understand where you are coming from. I would suggest some definitions myself, but that would seem like an outsider trying to impose their view on the project and take us back into deadlock. Road Wizard (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

(out) See Alan Ware, Political Parties and Party Systems, pp. 32: "Conservative parties emerged in opposition to Liberals. 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.... In one sense at least, Conservatism did not succeed in many countries--or rather it did not succeed on its own. For the British this conclusion might seem odd. Surely, it might be argued, most countries have a counterpart to the British Conservatives. They do not...." TFD (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding project scope, I think there has been a wide consensus among project members (although there is a sizeable opposition to those outside the project) that the scope of WP Conservatism is rather wide, covering all forms of conservatism and related articles. Thus American conservatism, British conservatism, Japanese conservatism, Rush Limbaugh, David Cameron, Andrew Breitbart, to Trevor Rogers would all be reasonable articles within the preferred wide scope of the project.

As far as a US-centric focus of the project, that I believe is not intentioned but possibly a systematic bias due to the interest of the members, who are predominately from the United States. It is not that the Wikiproject is ONLY limited to the United States, but that due to the nature of English Wikipedia and its membership that is largely from the United States, and as editors tend to focus on where they are interested in it may create an unintentional editing of articles related to American conservatism more so than other fields within the wide scope.

Additionally, depending on the nation, there may not be as many reliable sources that would support creation of conservatism within that country. For instance, see my discussion about the possibility of a Conservatism in the Philippines article, that I had thought might be possible at WP:PINOY; not much came of that due to the lack of RSs to draw upon to write such an article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Let me address one concern of RightCowLeftCoast's: All the other political projects are basically abandoned or never updated, at least the ones I looked at. Like in two years. This one attracted attention because it is busy. The same principles we are talking about would apply to them as well, and if needed, would be used to create change there. The idea of combining them as a project to cover US Politics is rather interesting, although I have not thought that completely out. But I'm not a conservative hater Cow, trust me, I'm a bias anywhere hater. If this project was dead and a Liberal Project was problematic, my enthusiasm would be the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should look at WP:Barack Obama as well, as it is very active. I believe they are as well intentioned as editors who are members of this wikiproject, but since they are as active (possibly more so)... --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RCLC, if you begin with the assumption that every country has conservatives, then you invite original research. Who were the Iranian conservatives - the supporters of the Shah or of the ayatollahs? In Eastern Europe, is it the ex-Communists or the pro-capitalists? In Western Europe, is it the Christian Democrats or the anti-clerical free market liberals? Political ideology outside the US is too varied to map onto the US liberal-conservative model. TFD (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said that EVERY country has conservatives, however those countries where there is reliable sources that verify there is conservatism then those articles and potential articles, that fall within the scope could theoretically be tagged and supported by this WikiProject. As I said, the purpose (as I see it) of this WikiProject is NOT to be US centric but to be about the multiple and widely varied forms of conservatism and the articles related to conservatism in those countries where it is verified to exist. Unfortunately, due to the systematic bias that the majority of English Wikipedia editors come from Europe and the United States, and as editors may attempt to improve articles that they are interested in, those articles maybe more related to where they live than where the did not. As for the Philippines, let me link to that discussion; you can clearly see that after not finding sufficient reliable sources the idea of creating the article was dropped. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:Barack Obama, by its nature, is a biographical project. Look at the member’s roster. There is no partisanship, merely biographical interest. With one exception: there is one member who wants to “guard against right wingers”. And so, he should be dealt with. But this is not nearly on the scale as it is here. Furthermore, it has a simple scope. Even if there were a problem with bias at this project, it would have to be dealt with separately, as it would have very little in common with what is going on here. As soon as someone finds “issues” similar to what has pointed out with this project at another project, I’d be happy to look at it. So far, I’ve found none. And I’ve looked. RGloucester (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that remains the case there. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I will keep watch, and I’m sure you will too. Anything we work out here will apply there. RGloucester (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do not watch that WikiProject. I may edit politically controversial articles from time to time to add content verified by reliable source(s) however I try to keep with my primary area of interest.

I still content, as a side note, that there are sufficient reliable sources out there sufficient to create an article about Anti-conservatism, as there is a Anti-communism article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The only reservations I would have about such an article on Anti-conservatism are, unfortunately, more or less my reservations about this project's scope in general. I acknowledge and am happy to see your comment above, about how this project has as one of its goals dealing with "conservatism" around the world. Unfortunately, those groups described as "conservative" in reliable sources may themselves have little if anything in common beyond the fact that the "conservative" label is applied to them. Also, while it is more than welcome that the group seeks to find RSes calling something or someone "conservative", that may not help that much. If I remember correctly, and I think I do, Bill Clinton was described in some news sources, and certainly by some members of the Democratic Party, as being a comparatively "conservative" Democrat. That labelling could certainly lead to him being counted as being a "conservative" according to reliable sources, even though I think most American conservatives would not consider him to be "one of them". Really, so far as I can see, there is no clear and generally agreed upon definition of "conservative" or "conservatism" available out there which can be used to determine the scope of this project. That is a very real problem, as it, basically, forces the group to use OR or SYNTH, or some variation on them, to determine whether an article does or does not fall within this group's scope. While I do applaud the effort to globalize "conservatism," unfortunately, speaking as someone who has been marginally involved in politics for an undisclosed number of years, there is no clearcut definition out there which would make such possible, which almost forces this project to "take sides" on whether something does or does not qualify as "conservative," and that pretty much clearly violates NPOV. I wish that were not the case, but, so far as I have ever been able to see, it is. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)