Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

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


WikiProject Conservatism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to conservatism. You can learn more about us here. If you would like to help, please join the project, inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list below. Guidelines and other useful information can be found here.


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Conservatism articles

Conservatism article rating and assessment scheme
(NB: Listing, Log & Stats are updated on a daily basis by a bot)
Daily log of status changes
Current Statistics
Index · Statistics · Log · Update

See also




Articles for deletion
Good article nominees
Requests for comments

Assessment log

August 31, 2015


  • Poland Plus (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

August 29, 2015


  • Antoni Macierewicz (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).


August 27, 2015



August 26, 2015



  • LGBTory (talk) removed. Quality rating was Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

August 24, 2015



August 23, 2015


August 22, 2015


August 21, 2015


August 19, 2015


August 18, 2015



  • Chuck Muth (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Glenn McCoy (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • James B. Utt (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Timothy Groseclose (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

August 17, 2015




August 14, 2015


  • Reagan Era (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).


  • A. L. Zissu (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

August 12, 2015


August 11, 2015



August 9, 2015


August 8, 2015


August 7, 2015


  • Robert Davi (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).



  • Boris Yeltsin (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Centrism (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Young Conservatives (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

August 6, 2015


August 4, 2015


August 3, 2015


  • Dick Morris (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

August 2, 2015


  • Dan Benishek (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

July 31, 2015


  • Euriquism (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Scott Walker (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Mid-Class (rev · t).


July 30, 2015


July 29, 2015



  • Cuckservative (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

July 28, 2015



  • Henry Angest (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

Requests for Comment

Talk:Nuclear weapon

Should the article include a section devoted to Ali Khamenei's views on nuclear weapons, and if so, should it be titled "Islamic views"?--Anders Feder (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mizrahi Jews

Should the picture of the Rav Ovadia Yosef be put back in the picture gallery ? Benjil (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Muslim population growth

Should the first line of last paragraph in the lead be included in this article. (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

Currently on Singer's page, the term "vulture" is described as having "attained widespread recognition throughout the media, and even within intergovernmental organisations, international financial institutions and numerous governments." Should this statement be added to a BLP? Meatsgains (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:John Connally

Which version of the lede do you prefer? - Location (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani

The lede paragraph of the lead section currently refers to a theory that the murder was a murder for hire designed to appear to be a random carjacking. Should that statement be excluded on the grounds that it gives undue weight to a theory that has since been at least partially discredited, since the primary suspect was formally acquitted on grounds of inadequate evidence to continue with trial?

Cast your !votes for Include to include the murder for hire theory, or Exclude to exclude the murder for hire theory, or otherwise explain your !votes so that they can be !counted. Do not comment in the Survey. Save your comments for Threaded Discussion.


Threaded Discussion

I will vote for "exclude" but that is mainly because I don't like the wording of the RFC. I think it requires a 3rd option - "include with qualification". Given the "murder for hire" theory was largely what gave this case a high profile, it does warrant mention in the lede, however it needs to be explicitly and unequivocally qualified by explaining that the theory was discredited.

My suggested wording is below:

"South African prosecutors formulated charges on the basis that she had been the victim of a premeditated kidnapping and murder for hire staged to appear as a random carjacking, at the alleged behest of her husband, Shrien Dewani. That theory was later discredited when Dewani was exonerated, the Western Cape High Court ruling that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations.[1]"

Dewanifacts (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Monsanto legal cases

Should this page include a single sentence about recently filed lawsuits by several U.S. cities regarding PCBs contamination, in which Monsanto is a sued party, which are described in the following news articles?

SageRad (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Quds Day

There's a viewpoint from BBC which is inserted here. To approach neutrality, I tried to add an opposite view from Chicago Monitor. The sentence form CM was removed alleging that the source is not reliable. A discussion happened in this regard to determine whether CM is reliable here or not. I'd like to ask for others to comment on this, considering the following points:
  • I also opened a topic in RSN which had no feedback.
  • As mentioned in the RSN topic, Chicago Monitor is "a website associated with the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations"[1] and a front site for CAIR in Chicago, per FrontPage Magazine [2]. The assistant editor at Chicago Monitor, who is the author of the disputed article here, is the Communications Coordinator at Cair-Chicago.

Can it be added? Mhhossein (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


Is the detailed methods of manufacturing Charas and further, to all prohibited drugs relevant to the articles? Twobellst@lk 18:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Early 2012 Hong Kong protests

Please comment on the current title, especially in regards to related policies (like WP:AT) and guidelines (like WP:NCE). --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges

**** S51438, what Gabe and I suggested concerned the dissents section, not the majority. Dissents and majorities differ markedly. In this case, given the number of dissents, it would be impossible to treat them alike without producing an unacceptably long dissents section, one that overwhelms the majority opinion, drowning it in a sea of verbiage. The dissents can not exceed the majority section, which would be a balance problem. To ensure that, one should be more generally topical and thematic with the dissents. Generally speaking, it is neither necessary nor desirable to explain every detail, point, or argument in any decision. Selection must be made for readability and emphasis in the space available and prudent.
        • So I propose: (a) that you leave the majority as it was before today; and (b) that you focus on distilling each dissent to its two or three most extensive points, very briefly developed, adding drive-by references to a couple of lesser but noteworthy points, space provided, making sure not to significantly exceed the majority in length, cumulatively. It it could be shorter, so much the better, but that may require avoiding discussing the dissents (entirely) separately.
        • I suggest we now sleep on it, doing nothing for about a day. Perhaps others will chime in by then. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

Is reference to the views of Raed Salah [3] in October 2011 relevant to the description of the subject in a video [4] in April 2012, cited in a critical article[5]? Cpsoper (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


Another user has stated that this article should be about the political entities ruled by the House of Yi (aka the Joseon Dynasty), to include the Joseon Kingdom and the Korean Empire. The user claims that academia rarely discuss the Kingdom of Joseon in its own right, always either the Joseon Dynasty or the Joseon Era. Should Joseon be rewritten or renamed Joseon Dynasty, or is the current coverage adequate? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

On the primary schedule, maybe we can have it placed within a table? Inside it, we could see the state, date of election, number of delegates, open/closed, winner-take-all/proportional. Any thoughts?
Maybe something like this;


Talk:United States

Should "From 1990 to 2013, workers with high school education or less have lost more wages than those with college degrees have gained.[1]" be included in this article? 15:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Nazism sidebar

I propose scaling the size of the swastika in the infobox down slightly from 120px to 100px. I believe that for a lone symbol, the image is slightly too big and draws attention away from the articles that it appears in. By scaling it down slightly (yes, it may not seem like much but it makes a huge difference), aesthetics are greatly improved. I have placed the template to the side of this discussion for visual aid: the top infobox has the swastika scaled to 100px, and the bottom is scaled to the current 120px. What are your thoughts? Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Proposal: impose a one-year moratorium on all move proposals for this article, starting at the time this RfC is closed. Any new move proposals started during the moratorium will be speedily hatted and/or archived. VQuakr (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


Should the area number be made consistent with other encyclopaedias/sites' country profile ([6][7][8][9][10]) as well as the wiki article listing nations by Land area? This number reflects area under de-facto control by the country, just like other country articles on WP.

Naturally, the same logic extends to whether the infobox should display the version ([11]) which neither shows other claims on Indian controlled territory, nor Indian claims on non-Indian-controlled territories. A map to display claims is already shown later in the article under 'Subdivisions'.

By leaving the current map (and area number) as is, it subtly pushes a POV only showing Indian claims on other territory, whilst not applying the same to disputed territory controlled by India (Indian controlled J&K + Arunachal Pradesh in dark green). Not to mention that it is inconsistent with how other encyclopaedias and even WP conveys such information. (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:User WikiProject United States presidential elections

An updated design has been proposed for this userbox. Which do you prefer?17:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


Should Susya article be split and become a disambiguation page redirecting 3 different articles about the archaeological site, the Palestinian community and the Israeli settlement? Settleman (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States

which map should we use? there was a disagreement between me Dannis243 and Dhtwiki about the map so i want to create a new clear consensus on this Dannis243 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Remodeling of major party candidate areas

This is a RFC regarding the organization and display for the candidates of each major party.

Information in this subpage was moved from the original (Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016). No information has been deleted (but some has been added to clarify a few things). The options listed below are by no means the only options available. If you have your own option please feel free to add it. In addition, new options have been purposed since the original posting. Please feel free to change your vote.


Talk:List of cities proper by population

Hong Kong is a country (or as some others may prefer the word "region"), though not a sovereignty state. It has its own flag: The HKSAR Flag, which is widely recognised by International Olympic Committee and some other international organisations (e.g. APEC) under the name of "Hong Kong, China" (often referred to as the Olympic Standard). This is recognised and approved also by the central government of P.R. China. I strongly request related articles to list Hong Kong in the country list (in the form of "Hong Kong, China" if preferred to avoid disputes), and to list its SAR Flag int the flag list.

The situation is highly similar to Puerto Rico of U.S., Gibraltar of U.K., and French Polynesia of France. The reasons are: Hong Kong enjoys its own currency (HK Dollar), has its own border (with independent immigration and customs control), own jurisdiction system (common law and Court of Final Appeal), and is recognised as an economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groverlynn (talkcontribs)

Here are the key points against your argument:
  • Hong Kong is not an independent (sovereign) country, it is Special administrative region of China. And so does not match any of the other flags on the list, which are all sovereign countries.
  • Hong Kong is a second tier administrative unit, like an American State, or Chinese Province, and does not match any of the other flags on the list, which are all first order administrative units..
  • The Olympics is not an authority on what is a first level administrative unit. People of Hong Kong are represented in the United Nations by China, which is the first level administrative unit, as an example.
  • For these reasons, primarily that the inclusion of the Hong Kong flag is inconsistent with inclusion criteria for other flags on this list, Hong Kong should be considered part of China and use the Chinese flag. I would like to hear from other users on this as well. Mattximus (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose

At the time of the traffic stop, the victim, Samuel DuBose, was driving on an indefinitely suspended driver's license, and had marijuana (some sources say 2 pounds) and about $2,600 cash in the car. This information is uncontested, but the officer, Tensing, was not aware of the information until after the incident. Where does this information belong?


  • preferably A, then B Tensing did not know, but dubose did know, and this statement is an accurate summary of the Dubose's actions/status just prior to the incident. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Blue Army (Poland)

The Blue Army participated in violence against Jews in Poland in 1919. Should these two bolded statements linking anti-Semitic violence to Jewish Bolshevism appear in the article?

  1. (From the lead): "During the fighting on the Ukrainian front elements of the Blue Army were involved in acts of violence directed against segments of the local Jewish population, partly caused by the fact that some Jewish political parties and organizations in Galicia found themselves sharing ideological platforms with Bolshevik Russia, as well as with revolutionary elements in Western Ukraine and republican Germany." relevant diff

  2. (From the body): "A Jewish tailor who supported the Bolshevik cause was suspected, and killed by civilians and Haller's soldiers on the street…" relevant diff

Talk page discussion is found above. -Darouet (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


I am raising this this diff as a matter for urgent input regarding the Israel article.
  • As an aspect of the nation of Israel I believe that the significant number of UN resolutions (they've issued 232 resolutions with respect to Israel since 2003, representing 40% of all resolutions issued by the UN over the period) should be at least briefly mentioned under the politics subheading however this is being opposed as violating WP:NPOV. This isn't a matter of NPOV this is simply a matter of fact and it is unfair on the reader to not at least mention this and provide the See also tag which directs the reader to the actual articles that deal with this issue. Some readers on wikipedia might only visit the Israel page looking for what NGOs or the UN have done regarding the actions of the state which we all see in the news. By constantly suppressing this information I believe opponents to this edit are violating the guidelines of wikipedia because they're literally concealing information regarding a subject which is fully sourced simply because they don't like what the facts are. I've said multiple times that they can add whatever they want to it to "balance" it out but blanking the text and removing the edit it is a shockingly poor attitude to take. Sakimonk talk 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


At issue is the change in this diff, specifically the inclusion of unilaterally incorporating them into its sovereign territory and the in contrast when referencing the West Bank as opposed to the Golan and East Jerusalem
  • Proponents of removing those two lines argue that sovereignty is not recognized by the international community for East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and in fact has been specifically rejected (United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 for East Jerusalem and United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 for the Golan Heights) and that the in contrast implies that while the West Bank is held under military occupation neither East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights are. That is an extreme minority position among reliable sources and the international community as there is wide consensus among sources and the international community that both the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are occupied by Israel and not in Israel and that the term military occupation does not mean martial law is imposed but rather that Israel exercises effective military control over territory outside its borders.
  • Opponents of removing those two lines argue that those territories are in Israel and that the territories are no longer militarily occupies the territory because they are not under military rule.

Nableezy 16:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)



For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every hour by Legobot.

Deletion discussions


New articles

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2015-08-31 19:09 (UTC)

Other listings

Cleanup listing
Popular pages
Top edits watchlist
Hot Articles list (Top 20)

Related projects

WikiProject Conservatism is one of the Politics WikiProjects.

General Politics | Biography: Politics and government | Elections and Referendums | Law | Money and politics | Political parties | Voting Systems
Political culture Anarchism | Corporatism | Fascism | Oligarchy | Liberalism | Socialism
Social and political Conservatism | Capitalism | Libertarianism
Regional and national Australia | China | India | Japan | South Korea | New Zealand | Pakistan | United Kingdom | UK Parliament constituencies | US Congress | U.S. Supreme Court Cases

External links

  • This project on Commons Commons-logo.svg COM
  1. ^ Irwin, Neil (April 21, 2015). "Why American Workers Without Much Education Are Being Hammered". The Upshot (New York Times). Retrieved 25 April 2015.